Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 03273 6424 





San Francisco Public Library 



n Center 
Sai o Public Llbraiy 

100 Larkm Street, 5tti Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

REFERENCE BOOK 



Not to be taken from the Library 



ho* 4? 






HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1994 
1:38 P.M. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAR 2 8 1994 

SAN FRANC. -0 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



246-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



« s 



?OL 



uIFORNIA 



■2 < C 

00 (J 03 

CD O to fl 



S c 

" | a £ O g °£ VRY 16, 1994 



U CO CO _ 



O. j I jj D 



3 « 5 u "a I a ; a £ ^ * 



2d $b5s ' §d .m. 



« g 8 * & I ^ 



« ""• JT §cn^ ttCdjoS ^-^q 



* £ =r <* «22 § -g -I -g 



<* W S S - ^ a c a 3 c 

vo T3 „ d J « ^2 w 2<:° o 

3 CD ?? •- _-<3\S cO <^ " 00 « .3 X> 

— 3 ^ .2 "5 n-o 3 3 u « 

s 3 S > p- a i § ^aaa2s ^j 



CO 
00 






1 


O 


c 


to 


■ 


<D 


CD 
CD 


CO 


s 




'3 

— 
O 


3 


a. 


"o 


E 


J* -1 


D. 


CD 


"?3 


c3 



CD 

x> 

a 

3 



d o o -2 

Q Q Z 5 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16 , 1994 
1:38 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



3 1223 03273 6424 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

MEMBERS ABSENT 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

MICHAEL J. MICCICHE, Director 
Department of Economic Opportunity 

JOHN LEMMONS 

John Lemons Consultants 

RUBEN TREVISO 

Veterans in Community Services 

BILL GARCIA, State Advisor 
American G. I. Forum of California 

ZIGMUND VAYS, Chairman 

Legislative Committee 

Association of Southern Californa Energy Providers 

DAVID C. GONZALEZ 

Association of Southern Californa Energy Providers 

JOHN D. SMITH, Director 
Office of Administrative Law 



4 49383 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
75 SFPL 06/06/03 23 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 



MICHAEL J. MICCICHE, Director 

Department of Economic Opportunity 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Reductions in Petroleum Violation 

Account Funds 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Federal Budget's Proposed 50 Percent Cut 

in Energy Assistance Programs 5 

Crisis Intervention Program 5 

Prioritization of Expenditures 6 

Low Interest Loans for Weatherization 7 

Reason for Two Programs 7 

Ways to Rely More on Private rather than 

Public Funds 8 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Purposes for Current Community Services 

Block Grants 9 

Criteria Used in Determining Block Grants .... 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Local Discretion in Use of Block Grants 10 

Exemplary and Outstanding Programs 10 

Hardest Part of Job 12 

Witness in Opposition: 

JOHN R. LEMMONS 

John Lemmons Cosultants 13 



INDEX (Continued) 

Director's Inaccessibility to Employees 14 

Inability to Control Managers 15 

Lack of Regard for Due Process 15 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Status of Case Cited 16 

Due Process Served by Hearing 17 

Result of Skelley Hearing 18 

Response by MR. MICCICHE 18 

Another SPB Hearing in March 19 

Current Achievement of Affirmative Action Goals . 19 

Disposition of Previous Cases 19 

Accessibility 19 

Statement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Committee Not Appropriate Body to Resolve 

Personnel Problems 20 

Response by MR. LEMMONS 2 

Conclusion by MR. MICCICHE 21 

Witnesses in Support: 

RUBEN TREVISO 

Veterans in Community Services 21 

BILL GARCIA, State Advisor 

American G. I. Forum 2 2 

ZIGMUND VAYS, Chairman 

Legislative Committee 

Association of Southern California Energy Providers . . 2 3 

Question by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Organization's Receipt of State Grants ... 24 

DAVID C. GONZALEZ 

Association of Southern California Energy Providers . . 25 



V 

t 

INDEX (Continued) 

Motion to Confirm 2 5 

Committee Action 2 6 

JOHN D. SMITH, Director 

Office of Administrative Law 2 6 

Background and Experience 2 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Area of Specialization while in 

Private Law Practice 2 7 

Staff Reductions and Ability to Do Job 2 7 

Complaints in Delays of Approvals 2 8 

Legal Opinions on Underground Regulations .... 28 

Number of Reviews Each Year 2 8 

Notable Disapproved Regulations 2 9 

Governor's Ability to Overrule OAL ' s Decision . . 30 

Problems with Regulations from Department of 

Insurance 30 

Reasons for Disapprovals 31 

Number of Lawyers in Office 31 

Hardest Part of Job 3 2 

Motion to Confirm 32 

Committee Action 32 

Termination of Proceedings 32 

Certificate of Reporter 33 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have two gubernatorial 
appointees here today. First, Mr. Micciche. 

Start by telling me how to say it properly. 

MR. MICCICHE: Mi-chi-kay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What is that? 

MR. MICCICHE: It's an Italian name. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: David Roberti would have known 
that. You already know the difference between the old and the 
new. 

Thank you for joining us. I guess you might just 
begin by telling us who you are, what you've been doing, and why 
you should do this job. 

MR. MICCICHE: Thank you, I ' d be happy to. Thank 
you, Senator and Senators. 

Again, my name is Michael Micciche. I was appointed 
as Director of the Department of Economic Opportunity in 
September of 1993. 

Prior to that, I was acting Director for about a 
year, and then Chief Deputy prior to that. 

I've spent a couple years over at the Housing and 
Community Development Department, and all in all, without going 
into each detail, I think it's self-evident on the resume that 
I've spent about 25 to 30 years in and around community action, 
community-based organizations, both directly and indirectly, and 
spent some time in and out of state government, federal 
government, and the private sector, but all directly or 



indirectly related to working with low income individuals and 
families and programs. 

The Department right now has two or three areas that 
we are really focusing on wholeheartedly and have spent a 
significant amount of resources and time addressing. They 
include: self sufficiency; lead paint abatement; and our 
overall community services block grant and weatherization 
programs . 

We are 100 percent federally funded. We do not 
impose on the General Fund, have not for some time. We are 
looking at some impacts down the road, however, in the 
President's proposed budget, at least, in Washington, 
specifically related to our low income home energy assistance 
program, which would result in about a $33 million to the State 
of California. 

There's also some discussion in and around the budget 
proposal which simultaneously has reauthorization this year, so 
there's some discussion about changing the structure of that 
program. 

Basically, we have about 120 employees or 150, 
depending on seasonal hires. We do a direct payment program 
with HEAP. We do verification for PG&E and for some other small 
utility companies, which, as you may know, is the 
pre-eligibility determination for the 15 percent rate discount 
in PG&E bills . We expect to be contracting with SMUD very 
shortly, doing the same thing for their version of the program. 

That is some of the source of nongovernmental funds 
that we try to earn, and we're focusing our energies, really, on 



looking at diversifying in that area as much as possible. 

The Department, just as a little background for those 
of you who don't know, is really the inheritor of the original 
War on Poverty creation back in the '60s. It was then the 
Office of Economic Opportunity. It's been located in many 
different places in the state: in and out of the Governor's 
Office; in EDD a couple times; and as an independent department. 

We are now, by Executive Order, located in Health and 
Welfare and are trying that for a year. We have found it, and I 
think our network has found, that it's been very, very 
productive, and very encouraging, and that we've been able to 
mobilize resources and communicate better with each other, 
agencies and departments with similar programs. Some of the 
evidence of that is lead paint, which is a three-department 
consortia, really, of three-department responsibility. And 
other evidence includes our disaster participation, disaster 
response, with Social Services and the agency as a whole. And 
we'll be embarking on some experimental programs, hopefully, 
with the Department of Social Services in the area of family 
preservation and family resource development. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala . 

SENATOR AYALA: DEO received roughly $3.7 million 
from the Petroleum Violation Account in '92-93, and down to a 
half a million last year. I'm told that there'll probably be no 
funds from that Petroleum Violation Account for your Department 
in '94-95. 

What do you anticipate to be the affect of reductions 
from the PVA funds, reduction to your Department? 



MR. MICCICHE: What does it mean specifically — 

SENATOR AYALA: What's going to be affected the most 
that you feel — 

MR. MICCICHE: The major effect is, we have 
historically, at least over the last couple of years, used the 
PVA funds to supplement the weatherization activities. 

SENATOR AYALA: What percentage of the total budget 
is that? 

MR. MICCICHE: Oh, it's one percent, maybe, four or 
five percent. That's all. 

We have used it to augment weatherization because the 
federal weatherization programs have regulatory and legislative 
limitations on what they can do. So, we've used PVA funds to do 
minor rehabilitation and some minor home repairs above and 
beyond the weatherization. It's been pretty effective. 

We do understand, by the way, that there is another 
settlement pending with City Services Company, a $100 million 
settlement, which means the state may be in line for some 
additional funds when that is settled. 

SENATOR AYALA: You use it as supplemental funds -- 

MR. MICCICHE: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: — so it would not really be a 
disaster to your budget this coming fiscal -- 

MR. MICCICHE: No, not a disaster. 

SENATOR AYALA: You'd want to have them, but you're 
not going to see that it ' s going to — 

MR. MICCICHE: Right. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: A similar question is, if the 
federal budget is enacted that provides about a 50 percent cut 
in the Energy Assistance Program, what would you contemplate 
doing about that? 

MR. MICCICHE: That's a different story. That is a 
major impact. 

Unfortunately, it's hard to determine what effect 
it's going to have on the Program because, as I indicated, 
there's also a proposal or will be a proposal shortly from the 
Administration to restructure the program. Right now, it has 
basically three components with maximum percentages on each: 
one is the Direct Payment Program, which is really an 
entitlement payment, annual payment, to eligible residents; two 
is an Emergency Crisis Intervention program; and three is 
Weatherization. 

We in California — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What is the Crisis Intervention 
Program? 

MR. MICCICHE: That's people who are in danger of a 
shut-off, can't pay their bill. Our agency steps in and make 
sure that doesn't occur. 

We also use a substantial amount, in fact this year, 
we'll be using 25 percent of our total for weatherization, which 
of course as you know, with all the studies, really is the best 
approach to energy conservation and keeping money in people ' s 
pockets for consumer income. 

So, unless we know — until we know what the 
President's going to do with that structure, what we've read and 



3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
1? 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



heard is that he wants to lean more towards the 
weatherization/self-suf f iciency aspect and really decrease or 
eliminate the Direct Payment Program. 

There's tremendous opposition to that, particularly 
in the colder climates of the North East and the North Central, 
which really do 100 percent in that area. They spend almost all 
of their money in that Direct Payment Program. 

But regardless of that — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean in the northern part of 
the country? 

MR. MICCICHE: Yes, not California. 

Our problem in California is that everybody thinks 
it's Los Angeles, and they forget that Truckee is also here, you 
know. So, we fight that battle on a separate front. 

Obviously, $33 million, which is what we estimate it 
would be, if it stands at 51 percent cut, would have a major 
impact on staffing and on our network's ability to provide the 
extent of services they currently provide. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And how would you prioritize among 
the expenditures? I guess that's another way of asking what is 
the contemplated restructuring? 

MR. MICCICHE: Well, the President's contemplated 
restructuring is leaning towards weatherization, and self- 
sufficiency, and long-term prevention. But there's no more 
specifics than that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So that would mean the direct 
payment or the emergency fund would be the lower priority? 

MR. MICCICHE: Yes, that's what we hear. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I see PG&E and SMUD bills, as 
someone who lives in two places, and they routinely tell me how 
low interest loans are available, or some other help, to do 
weatherization . 

That's just conducted by themselves; that's not your 
program or monies? 

MR. MICCICHE: It's not through the state Department, 
but most of the agencies that administer the utility programs 
are the same agencies that administer ours. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So they're subcontracting with 
people? 

MR. MICCICHE: Most of the community action agencies, 
et cetera. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Their CAP is to do PG&E or — 

MR. MICCICHE: Right, or Southern Cal. Gas, Southern 
Cal . Edison. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: To do that program and 
additionally be contracting with you? 



10 



19 MR. MICCICHE: Correct. 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Why do we have two things? Is 

2 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



there a different eligibility criteria or something else? 

MR. MICCICHE: No, it's really a low-income — their 
program is a low-income weatherization program as well. Theirs 
emanated, of course, with — through the PUC some years ago, and 
it's taken on various and different types. 

We understand, as a matter of fact, that they're 
considering cutting back tremendously in that program as well. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that "they" meaning the PUC? 



6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



MR. MICCICHE: No, the utility companies. They're 
looking at it, would like to, I think, phase down a little bit 
in that program. 
4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that a PUC order? 

MR. MICCICHE: No. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They're volunteering? 

MR. MICCICHE: They'd like to propose to do so. 

And not all utilities do it, you know. It's really 
the major -- the big ones. And of course, they do the 15 
percent reduction; most of them do something of that nature as 
well . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean a lifeline rate or 
something? 

MR. MICCICHE: Yes, a rate reduction. And we certify 
that client for PG&E. We do a preverif ication eligibility for 
them. 

But the programs really do complement one another. 
One of the benefits that the state has realized because of their 
involvement, the federal government provides leveraging funds 
for all these nongovernmental funds you're able to leverage in 
this program, and we have always been in the top three or four 
nationally in that regard. In fact, last year we leveraged more 
than the federal grant, which was 60 million; we leveraged over 
60 million based on the utility companies' involvement. So, 
that would be missed if they phased back in conjunction with the 
federal cutback. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there a way to try to integrate 
the two efforts and rely more on the private rather than the 



10 

11 

12 
13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



public? 

MR. MICCICHE: Our network of contracting agencies 
and CAAs are doing just that and have continued to try to do 
that. In fact, I'm meeting with utilities currently to try to 
talk them out of any cutbacks, really. 

Of course, utilities are also in Washington, making a 
pitch for the federal program to continue as well. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Yes, Senator 
Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: A couple more. 

For what purposes has your agency provided community 
services block grants in this current fiscal year? 

MR. MICCICHE: Community services block grant, by the 
nature of the definition, is locally determined. 

SENATOR AYALA: Locally determined by whom? 

MR. MICCICHE: By the community. Every county in the 
State of California -- 

SENATOR AYALA: In what way? They have supervisors, 
or local agencies? 

MR. MICCICHE: It starts, really, at the grass roots. 
If the county has a nonprofit community action agency, for 
example, they would hold one or more public hearings, community 
meetings, usually in various neighborhoods, and it works its way 
up to be approved and submitted to the Department, which in turn 
incorporates it into the state plan, which goes to Washington. 

SENATOR AYALA: How do you determine where federal 
block grants, funds, will do the most good? What criteria do 
you use for that? 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



10 

MR. MICCICHE: It's on an allocation formula by 
county, and it's based solely on the low income census 
statistics . 

SENATOR AYALA: From within local — 

MR. MICCICHE: Right, and it's revised every ten 
years as the census is published. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are those funds, as the title 
suggests, generally available for county uses? Do they have 
considerable discretion? 

MR. MICCICHE: Yes, they do have considerable 
discretion. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Within those, what, general 
federal — 

MR. MICCICHE: General parameters that you must serve 
the eligible population, which is really an income determinant. 
But beyond that, we have a -- I mean, agencies vary from Eureka 
to San Diego in terms of how they use the funds: homeless 
programs; transitional housing programs; food and nutrition 
programs; economic development programs for small minority 
businesses . 

It's really, I think, it's the truest nature of what 
the block grant was intended to be. We don't tell them what to 
do. They tell us what they want to do with it. As long as it 
meets the general criteria, that's what they do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there programs that come to 
mind that are exemplary that you wish everyone else would find 
out about, that are really outstanding? 



6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



11 

MR. MICCICHE: Oh, yes, a number of them. 

Riverside County's Community Action Agency, which is 
part of county government — by the way, I should explain. We 
have in California about a 50-50 split between public community 



action agencies and private nonprofits. 



Riverside has an exemplary program in the area of 
family self-sufficiency and family development. And you've 
often heard that it's often looked at as one of the successful 
GAIN programs. But they have managed to integrate very, very 
well their service delivery system there. They work on a self- 
sufficiency long-term prevention mode. It's a case worker 
approach; they deal with the entire family, and they have very 
specific milestones, and they watch people, and they track them. 
They have a tremendous success rate already. 

They're all different in different ways with 
variations. For example, Humboldt County, the Humboldt CAA in 
Eureka is a very environmental and conservation oriented agency, 
and much of it has had to be because of the lumber issues and 
the fishing issues up there. And so, they have a lot of job 
creation activities around conservation, and stream protection, 
and that kind of thing, as well as -- and most agencies do have 
some standard things that they all do. 

They all do intake and referral, and they all do 
housing, and energy, and weatherization, and that kind of thing. 
But the differences vary a lot of times because of what the 
localities would like to see occur. 

The Bay Area has some excellent programs, the South 
Bay Area, San Mateo County has weatherization and rehab. 



12 



6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



programs . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there particular private CAA 
programs that come to mind as extraordinary? 

MR. MICCICHE: Yes, and I might mention, I left out 
the fact that besides CAAs , we fund migrant seasonal farmworker 
agencies, and Native American groups, and limited purpose 
agencies, and some energy providers that do just energy. 

The migrant seasonal farmworker agencies do a 
terrific job. I mean, they're providing some very unique 
services to a unique population with unique needs . Most 
recently, thanks to your generosity a couple years ago with some 
PVA funds, we did a very unique program with the state's migrant 
housing stock that has really kind of owned, operated, by HCD 
and managed locally by housing authorities. Our weatherization 
agencies -- the migrant seasonal farmworker weatherization 
agencies have gone in there and are still in there, as a matter 
of fact, re-roofing, and new windows, and in some cases heating 
changes, water heaters, and that kind of thing. Very unique, 
very much needed. 

The Humboldt agency, by the way, is a private 
nonprofit . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the hardest part of your 
job? 

MR. MICCICHE: Hardest part of my job? Being here. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. MICCICHE: I don't know that I have — I mean, I 
just really enjoy my job. I just don't see that hard -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Nothing that stands out? 



13 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



MR. MICCICHE: I enjoy — I've been doing it for so 
long that I just enjoy doing it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Members? 

I believe there might be some public comment. If 
there's anyone that wishes to — yes, sir. 

MR. LEMMONS: I'm John Lemmons , and I would like to 
oppose the confirmation. 

First I'd like to explain about myself. I spent 30 
years in state service, primarily as a management auditor. 

Since my retirement, I've worked representing 
different members for different organizations, and I have worked 
for CAFE de California for approximately the last four years. 

Now, I'm not here today representing that 
organization. I'm here representing myself and speaking for 
Paul Bocanegra, who's in the audience, who's going to have to 
leave in a few minutes because he's working on the Caltrans 
disaster budget provisions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's a disaster; you're right. 

MR. LEMMONS: Yes, and I hear that they're getting 
budget changes every hour. 

I would first like to state that although our 
concerns about Michael Micciche's qualifications relate to 
personnel administration, I will not present an employee 
grievance to this Committee. But I believe you should hear us 
on personnel administration matters because it is one of the 
largest costs of state government and involves constitutional 
guaranteed property interests that have been ignored. 

Just this last year, we've all seen articles in the 



14 



l 



8 



18 

19 
20 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



newspapers about many court awards of hundreds of thousands of 



2 dollars to employees because of abuses in personnel 

administration. These are awards that should not have occurred, 

4 and I hope we will never become so callous as to consider them 

5 the normal cost of government. 

6 But even more important is the untold suffering of 
state employees at the hands of bad managers and supervisors, 
which is unconscionable, and I'm the one who has to deal with 

9 their suffering. 

We want the record to show that I , John Lemmons , and 
Paul Bocanegra oppose the confirmation of Michael Micciche as 
Director of the Department of Economic Opportunity for the 
following reasons. There's only three of them. I'll try to 
make it short. 
15 Mr. Micciche is not accessible to those who need 

recourse in dealing with Department managers. He could have 
avoided our presentation here today if he would have been 
willing to meet with us and discuss what we consider serious 
problems in the Department. He has chosen to remain insulated 
against uncomfortable problems. 

By not being accessible, Mr. Micciche has abdicated 
most of his power -- excuse me, my throat is sore -- much of his 
power to his career executive who is more powerful than he in 
many of our eyes . 

He also insists that all matters be cleared through a 
special assistant, which is merely a part of the filter system 
designed to protect him from uncomfortable problems. But it 
also serves to keep him uninformed, because in a bureaucracy, 



I 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



15 

bad news does not travel upward. 

Number two, Mr. Micciche has not demonstrated a 
willingness to control his managers, who, to many employees, are 
vindictive and mean-spirited people who regularly abuse 
employees in what these employees call psychological battery, 
particularly the disabled, by making repeated references to 
their disabilities, repeated inquiries about their medical 
matters -- about medical matters pertaining to their 
disabilities, and repeated suggestions that they participate in 
employee assistance programs. 

One disabled employee was refused a reasonable 
accommodation, while another was threatened with punitive action 
that was designed -- I mean disguised as a reasonable 
accommodation. All of these examples are violations of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal statute. 

Number three, Mr. Micciche has shown little regard 
for state and federal constitutional due process guarantees when 
dealing with employees' property interests. Also, he lacks the 
personal courage to make difficult personnel decisions. 

As an employee -- as an example, he personally caused 
the dismissal of a disabled employee without a meaningful due 
process hearing. This was done even though the Skelley hearing 
officer recommended against dismissal because the charges were, 
quote, "unsupported and frankly petty," unquote. 

The hearing was meaningful because Mr. Micciche chose 
to ignore the Skelley hearing officer's findings and 
recommendations, thus permitting the employee to be terminated 
without him really making a decision. 



16 



I know Mr. Micciche wants the State Personnel Board 
to handle this problem, but the State Personnel Board hearing 
judge, who's been handling this matter for more than a year 
because I represent the employee, Judge Alvarez, keeps asking 
why the Director hasn't settled this thing in the past year and 



a half, because the Skelley hearing officer's decisions must be 
worth something. 

I want to remind the Committee that these violations 
of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of 
California, and Americans with Disabilities Act are serious 
matters that will not go away. I hope that whatever this 
Committee does today will improve personnel administration in 
the Department of Economic Opportunity, because this Committee 
only has one opportunity to have an impact. 

I would like to take any questions you have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Mr. Lemmons . 

Are there questions from any Member? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Just to refresh me, what is CAFE de 

19 California? 

20 MR. LEMMONS: It stands for Chicano Advocates For 
Equality. It's a statewide organization. 

SENATOR AYALA: Isn't this case now currently 
awaiting arbitration, the case you have referenced? Is that now 
currently awaiting arbitration? 

MR. LEMMONS: No, it's not. 

SENATOR AYALA: It is not; this is another case. 

MR. LEMMONS: It's not in arbitration and won't be. 
It's before the State Personnel Board. 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



17 

MR. MICCICHE: With a scheduled hearing date. 

SENATOR AYALA: But it will get due process; will it 
not? 

MR. LEMMONS: But since the decision in 1972 of 
Skelley vs. State Personnel Board , the State Supreme Court ruled 
that employees -- nonprobationary employees have a property 
interest in their position, and that property interest shall not 
be taken in violation of the U.S. Constitution or the State 
Constitution. There must be due process. 

This person's property was taken without due process, 
though there was a hearing. The decision was made to dismiss 
this employee before the decision of the Skelley hearing officer 
was known, and this is a clear violation of — they took her 
property. She's on the streets and has been on the streets for 
a year and a half. 

And though I go back and we tried to resolve this, 

but it was further -- the process was further complicated 

18 because Mr. Micciche has never made a decision on this matter. 

She was terminated under the terms of the adverse action, which 
20 



10 
11 

12 
13 

14 
15 
16 

17 



21 



25 
26 

27 
28 



was written before the employee was — went to a Skelley 
hearing. 



22 SENATOR AYALA: The Skelley was never terminated or 

completed? 

24 



MR. LEMMONS: The Skelley hearing is conducted by a 
state Skelley hearing officer. 

SENATOR AYALA: I know what that is, but I'm not 
asking you that. Was the end result ever — 

MR. LEMMONS: Yes, yes. 



3 



18 

SENATOR AYALA: — public? 

MR. LEMMONS: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: What was that opinion? 
4 MR. LEMMONS: The decision came out the next -- two 

days later, from what I gather. At least, that's when I got my 
copy. 

SENATOR AYALA: Indicating what? 
8 MR. LEMMONS: Indicated that the charges were not 

supported, and that they were, frankly, petty, and she 
recommended against termination. But she was terminated anyway. 

MR. MICCICHE: May I respond to that? 

12 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

13 MR. MICCICHE: I take it back; this is the hardest 



14 



20 
21 
22 



25 
26 

27 
28 



part 



15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sure it's hard for Mr. Lemmons 

• 6 as well. 

17 MR. MICCICHE: Sure. 

I'd like to vehemently disagree with some of the 
statements . 

First of all, I did make a decision, and I'll stand 
behind the decision. I terminated this person who deserved -- 
may I finish? 
23 MR. LEMMONS: Sure. 

MR. MICCICHE: Who deserved to be terminated. 
The Skelley hearing officer recommended that we do 
something less than termination; did not say there were 
unsubstantiated charges . 

We chose to terminate. There ' d been a long history 



3 

4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



19 

with this employee. 

This is in, as Senator Ayala said, it is in due 
process. Judge Alvarez, at the last SPB hearing, in fact said 
we followed due process. 

This hearing is going before him or another judge at 
SPB March 15th, 16th or 17th. I think, frankly, that's where it 
belongs. If you want to discuss it here, we can discuss it, but 
it belongs at that hearing. It does not belong here, I do not 
believe . 

Our history in this Department is just the opposite 
from what Mr. Lemmons is talking about. Our current affirmative 
action goals and numbers indicate we are over parity in disable 
hiring; we are at or over parity in every other category. There 
is no history there. 

There were six cases that came up against the 
Department in the previous administration, back in 1992. All 
six were dismissed by the Federal Equal Opportunity and 
Employment Commission as having no merit. 

So, I take real umbrage with this kind of activity. 
And to say I'm not accessible, I made the proper and appropriate 
person accessible to Mr. Bocanegra and Mr. Lemmons, the person 
who handles personnel in my Department. They chose not to. 
They chose not to meet with her because -- and I have notes that 
indicate this and messages that indicate this -- because they 
wanted to meet with me regarding my confirmation, not about 
resolving this case; about my confirmation. 

I didn't feel like I wanted to be blackmailed in that 
regard. 



20 



10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I think, Mr. Lemmons, you'll 
appreciate the fact, as will all present, that we're not the 
appropriate body to resolve specific personnel problems. 

I guess our role would be, perhaps, to intervene if 
there were some pattern that was disturbing, that reflected on 
someone's personal qualifications. 

MR. LEMMONS: Could I respond? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MR. LEMMONS: Mr. Micciche has never made a decision 
known to the employee, to me, or to the State Personnel Board. 

Now, as for the proper authorities to handle this, 
yes, there are proper authorities. 

However, state employees these days have very, very, 
very little confidence in the State Personnel Board and the 
decisions that come out of the Personnel Board. 

I've tried on numerous occasions to get such matters 
as this before the Senate Employment and Retirement Committee 
without success. I can't get past the assistant. The first 
time I talked with the assistant, he's talking to me, but he's 
brushing his teeth. The next time, he's carrying on a 
conversation with his mother, and he says, "That's okay. I can 
talk to you both at the same time." Well, that doesn't work. 

Now, as far as making a person available in the 
Department of Economic Opportunity, when we called to make a 
request to speak with Mr. Micciche, because to speak with his 
special assistant is, to us, very useless. It has never worked. 
It is just useless for us to even comment about it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay, thank you, sir. 



21 

MR. LEMMONS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Micciche, did you want to add 
anything else in conclusion? 

MR. MICCICHE: Well, I just — again, I think the 
record speaks for itself, both mine and the Department's. 

If the question or the call had been to sit down and 
try to resolve this matter for the client's benefit one way or 
another, I would have been there to do that. And this has never 
been the request, and it's always been, "We want to talk to you 
about your confirmation and before your confirmation. " And I 
don't think that's in the best interests of the client. 

Due process will take place. We'll abide by whatever 
that decision is. We will obey the law. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone else present who 
would wish to comment? 

Questions or comments from Committee Members? 

Is there another gentleman? Yes, please come up. 

MR. TREVISO: Good afternoon, distinguished Senators, 
Senator Lockyer. 

My name is Ruben Treviso with the Veterans in 
Community Services. Some of you are familiar with me. 

The Veterans in Community Services Board, and its 
members and constituents, has been involved in the area of civil 
rights and advocacy for over four decades. From our Board of 
Directors have come: the Chairman of the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission; the Chairman of MALDEF; the Chairman of 
Latino Issues Forum; the Chairman of Public Advocates, and 
various members of the United States Civil Rights Commission. 



22 



l 



3 



5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



So, we're a little bit familiar with civil rights advocacy and 



affirmative action. As a matter of fact -- 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's your view with respect to 



this nomination? 



MR. TREVISO: We request his total support, because 
we have seen Mr. Micciche. I, myself, during my tenure in 
Washington as the National Director of the American G. I. Forum, 
had knowledge of Mr. Micciche at the federal agency at CSA. 

Also during my tenure in Washington, as the staff 
coordinator of the National Hispanic Organizations, I dealt with 
every Hispanic organization in the nation, and they hold the 
same high esteem, opinion, that I hold of Mr. Micciche. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MR. TREVISO: If you want more confirmation of that, 
you may read my article in the Hispanic Link . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MR. GARCIA: Mr. Chairman, Members, my name is Bill 
Garcia. I'm the State Advisor for the American G. I. Forum of 
California. You have a letter of support for Mr. Micciche in 
front of you, I believe. 

I just wanted to add to that that in the past, on 
many occasions, the Forum has served as an intermediary or 
mediator on issues that have just been mentioned here, which I 
was somewhat unaware of. 

Our support for Mr. Micciche stands as strongly as it 
was portrayed in that letter. 

I will be talking to Mr. Micciche in the future to 



7 



20 

21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



23 

see if there is some way we can get this issue that was 
presented, perhaps, resolved informally. 

I just wanted the panel to know that, the 

4 confirmation Committee. 

5 Thank you for your time. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MR. VAYS: Mr. Chairman, Members, my name is Zigmund 

Vays . I am the Chairman of the Legislative Committee for 
Southern California Association of Energy Programs. 

I'm here to voice my complete and full support for 
the confirmation of Mr. Micciche, to which extent our 
Association wrote a letter which is on file with Ms. Michel. 

It is not my place to comment on certain allegations 
which have been made before, except to say that I am an 
immigrant from Russia. And the reason I'm here, and I'm blessed 
to be here, is because I have been severely discriminated 
against because of my faith, because of my religion, because of 
my ethnic background. So, I'm very sensitive to this issue. 
9 And even to suggest that Mr. Micciche, or the 

majority of the members of the Department, have any bone of 
discrimination, I believe to be ridiculous. 

Once again, it's not my place to comment on the merit 
of the case. I would like only to point out the two issues 
which, Mr. Chairman, you kindly mentioned before. 

As far as the allocation for the Department of 
Economic Opportunity, while there is a proposed 51 percent 
reduction in LIHEAP funding, there is a proposed at least 50 
percent increase in funding for authorization programs through 



10 

n 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



24 

the Department of Energy, which is a different source of 
funding, which to some extent can supplement and complement and 
offset the reduction in funding for the LIHEAP, which would 
allow the Department to stay as a valuable asset of the state 
government . 

And to that extent, I would like to present a copy of 
the federal budget here. 

I represent the area which was severely affected by 
the earthquake. And the services which are provided by the 
Department of Economic Opportunity are of vital importance to 
the victims of this earthquake which occurred in the Los Angeles 
area. And it is to the best interests of the population of Los 
Angeles County and other counties which have been affected, and 
the lower income population of the entire state, that this 
department is going to be around in as stable, efficient manner 
has it has been around by Mr. Micciche during his term as 
interim Director and then as appointed Director. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I guess it's hard not to ask 
whether your Association or your members receive state grants 
from the office? 

MR. VAYS: Most of — we are an association of 
community-based organizations and also some public utilities 
companies as well. And we do the kind of work which — there's 
a state mandate of the Department of Economic Opportunity to 
contract out with different community-based organizations. 

In no way would I be testifying over here. My 
funding has been reduced, not because of Mr. Micciche, but 
because of the federal reductions. 



25 



6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



26 

27 
28 



And obviously, while -- I'm not here to testify on 
behalf of the funding situation, but I'm here to testify as to 
my experience as the Chairman of the Legislative Committee, 
working with Mr. Micciche to find new, innovative ways to 



optimize and maximize the state's resources to work with -- on a 



bipartisan basis with the Legislature. I have right here two 
letters which were written by Senator Rosenthal, Chairman of the 
Energy Committee, on the federal LIHEAP. 

And I simply believe that at this point in time, the 
Department needs stability, and it needs a director who is 
competent in the issues which are of major consideration to the 
victims of the disaster area. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? Oh, is there 
another? Yes, sir, I'm sorry. 

MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, fellow Senators, my name 
is David C. Gonzalez, and I'm a member of the Association of 
Southern California Energy Providers, and I'm the vendor rep. 
for that organization, which is the private sector. 

My statement is very simple. I've watched DEO, and 
it's gone through many directors. And this gentleman sitting 
next to me is probably the best Director I've ever seen there. 



23 Thank you very, very much. 

SENATOR AYALA: I would move the appointment. 

25 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator Ayala 
to recommend confirmation. 

Call the roll, please. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 



26 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 
Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 
Lockyer . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Four to zero. 

MR. MICCICHE: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We also have Mr. Smith who is 
here, the Director of the Office of Administrative Law. 

MR. SMITH: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you want to start by telling us 
anything about you and your responsibilities? 

MR. SMITH: Certainly, Senator. 

I'd first like to thank you, Senator and Members of 
the Committee, to be here today. 

I first arrived at the Office of Administrative Law 
in March of 1986. At that time, I was appointed Deputy Director 
and confirmed by the Senate. I served in that position until 
October of 1991, at which time I was appointed Director to 
complete the term of the last administration. I then -- when 
that administration left, I carried on as acting Director until 
May of 1991, at which time I was again appointed Director and 
confirmed by the Senate as Deputy Director. Then in August of 
'92, I was appointed Director and I appear before you today. 



27 

I've been with OAL for close to eight years now. 
I've been involved in every aspect of the Office, legal and 
administrative. I believe those qualifications are sufficient 
for this position. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What kind of lawyering did you do 
prior to this work for government? 

MR. SMITH: In private practice, I was first in 
general practice, did a variety of things. Then I was in 
insurance defense work. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there questions from Members? 

Well, I guess I'll start, just to learn a little more 
about you. 

You've had staff reductions, as I guess most -- 

MR. SMITH: Approximately 50 percent. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Almost 50 percent? In how long a 
time? 

MR. SMITH: Over the last two and half years. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How has that changed your ability 
to get the basic job done? What's been the consequence of those 
cuts? 

MR. SMITH: Very candidly, the basic job hasn't 
changed. We're doing the same quality of work. 

What we have done — what I did when we had those 
huge reductions was eliminate all middle management, everything 
that we weren't absolutely required to do by statute. 

So, the job we did then continues, it's just we don't 
do anything extra. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there complaints about delays 



28 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



24 



in approvals from some of the departments or agencies? 

MR. SMITH: No. We're statutorily limited to 30 
working days. Occasionally we can get something out quicker, 
but with the staff we have, we really can't do that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You schedule it in that way? 



6 MR. SMITH: Correct. 



The one area where we are constantly struggling to 
keep a schedule is in the other program where we issue legal 
opinions as to whether something is an underground regulation. 
That does not have time lines on it . I used to be able to 
devote two or three attorneys to that process, but I can no 
longer do that. So, that process — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone doing it? 

MR. SMITH: Yes, but it's allocated throughout the 
staff now, and with the time deadlines in the other program, 
it's just slowing everything up. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you quantify the sort of work 
you do? How many reviews do you have to do a year? 

MR. SMITH: We get approximately 1,000 rule-making 
files every year. That's the file that contains the text, and 
the comments, and everything that has transpired during that 
process . 



23 That equates to roughly 20,000-25,000 regulatory 



sections. A section can be a paragraph or three pages. 



25 We disapprove roughly 6,000 sections a year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Out of how many? 

27 



28 



MR. SMITH: Out of 20,000-25,000. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, one-fourth, or so? 



29 

MR. SMITH: Roughly. And most of those — probably 
80 percent of those that we have disapproved do come back to us 
and are approved. There is a small percent, 20 percent, that 
don't come back because — generally because they're not 
consistent with what the Legislature's told them to do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, 2 percent of the 6,000 -- 

MR. SMITH: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — they vanish? 

MR. SMITH: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there notable ones that come 
to mind that were significant departures from the statutory 
requirements that you can remember? 

MR. SMITH: One that comes to mind, and I don't mean 
to be picking on any particular agency, but it only comes to 
mind because it was around for so long. 

The Board of Pharmacy wanted to create a new class of 
people to dispense controlled substances. They called them 
pharmacy technicians, I believe. They submitted that regulation 
to us creating this new group of people. The problem was, there 
was no authority to do that. 

We disapproved them; told them to go back to the 
Legislature. Unfortunately, they resubmitted it two more times, 
making minor adjustments, but still with the basic inconsistency 
problem. 

They finally appealed it to the Governor's Office. 
The Governor's Office upheld our decision, and then they went to 
the Legislature and got the legislation to do it. That took 
about a year and a half. 



30 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can the Governor overrule you? 

MR. SMITH: No, the Governor upheld our decision. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But if the Governor disagreed with 
you, would that produce a different result? 

MR. SMITH: If the Governor disagrees with a 
disapproval by GAL, we have to immediately file it with the 
Secretary of State and then it becomes law. 

We've only been overruled, I think, in the history of 
OAL, maybe twice. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you quantify the 2 percent 
that are those that are submitted which are deemed to be 
violative of the statute and they disappear in terms of the 
policy areas, or segment of government that you tend to see 
large numbers of those circumstances? 

MR. SMITH: Not really. We don't -- I haven't 
thought about it in those terms, but I don't see that it's in 
any particular area. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You don't have an impression that 
there's some certain area? 

MR. SMITH: Not really. It's really kind of across 

21 the board. 

22 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How about the Department of 

23 Insurance? 

24 MR. SMITH: Not so much them, although we obviously 
had some problems in the last year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was the nature of those 
problems? 

MR. SMITH: The generic problem that the Department 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



20 



25 
26 
27 
28 



I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



31 

of Insurance had is the same problem that Health and Welfare had 
a number of years ago with Prop. 65. They were dealing with a 
proposition that was, in my opinion, very poorly written in 
certain aspects. 

My policy, if there is one, is that when you see 
regulations implementing statutes that are ambiguous, but if an 
agency chooses an interpretation which on its face is not 
inconsistent, it may not be, in my opinion, what the right 
policy ought to be, but that's not my job anyway. But it may 
not have been my choice, but as long as it's in a plausible 
interpretation, we will usually approve those and let the courts 
work it out. 

That's the problem that I think Insurance has faced. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But you didn't approve in some 
circumstances . 

MR. SMITH: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And that was because the law was 
silent, or ambiguous, or contrary to the regulations? 

MR. SMITH: Where we approved them on the first 
instance, they -- again, it might have been a close call, but we 
went ahead and approved it. There were, I believe, two 
instances when our disapproval of it was appealed to the 
Governor, and the Governor overruled us. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there questions from Members? 

Is there anyone present who would wish to make any 
comment? 

How many lawyers do you work with? 

MR. SMITH: We have eleven lawyers now. 



32 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the hardest part of your 
job? 

MR. SMITH: I've always enjoyed it, so I really don't 
-- the hardest part, I think, is when you get into some very 
knotty statutory interpretation and looking at the regulations 
to see if it's consistent. That's probably the most difficult. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just sort of legal analysis, in 
effect. 

MR. SMITH: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I can see how that would be fun if 
you're the type that likes it. 

All right, what's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator 
Beverly to confirm and recommend confirmation. 

Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 
Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



Lockyer . 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Four to zero. 

MR. SMITH: Thank you. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

j IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

this / f day of February, 1994. 




J^—h^ 



r ELYN/J . MTZAK 
Shorthand Reporter 




246-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 246-R when ordering. 



L500 
r>o.7 






HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 3191 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1994 
11:08 A.M. 



DOCUMFNf S DEPT. 

MAR 2 8 1994 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 



247-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 3191 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1994 
11:08 A.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

MEMBERS ABSENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

SENATOR AL ALQUIST 

WARDELL A. CONNERLY, Member 

Regents of the University of California 

PAUL MEYER 

Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California 

KIM ALEXANDER 

LESTER H. LEE, Ph.D., Member 

Regents of the University of California 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

WARDELL A. CONNERLY, Member 

Regents of the University of California 1 

Statement in Support of Both Appointees; 

SENATOR AL ALQUIST 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by SENATOR AY ALA re: 

Method of Determining Student Fee Increases ... 3 

Future Votes on Administrative Salaries 5 

Decisions regarding Long-term Contracts 

with Employees and Administrators 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Current Culture of Board and Desired 

Direction in Future 8 

Ten-year Trend in Administrative Salaries 

versus Faculty Salaries 10 

Goal of University for Student Body to 

Reflect State's Demographics 11 

Legitimate Role for Affirmative Action Efforts . . 12 

Concerns with Affirmative Action 13 

Vote against Student Fee Increase 14 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Vote on Fee Issue 14 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Importance of Affirmative Action 15 

Governor's Approval of Tax Increase 16 

Need for Regents to Support Tax Increase 

to Fund Higher Education 17 



IV 

INDEX (Continued) 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Possibility of More Student Fee Increases .... 18 

Accessibility to University with Maximum Mix ... 20 

Vote on Fee Increase 2 

Duty of Citizens to Fund Higher Education .... 21 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Independence as Regent after Significant 

Gubernatorial Campaign Efforts 24 

Witnesses in Support: 

PAUL MEYER 

Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors 

of California 27 

KIM ALEXANDER 2 7 

Motion to Confirm 2 9 

Committee Action 2 9 

LESTER H. LEE, Ph.D., Member 

Regents of the University of California 2 9 

Background and Experience 29 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Support for Student Fee Increase 3 3 

Talks with Governor about Supporting Tax 

Increase as Revenue Source 34 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Direction of University in Future 35 

Vote for Faculty Pay Cut 37 

Discussion on Procedural Situation 39 

Confirmation Put Over to Monday, February 28 42 

Termination of Proceedings 42 

Certificate of Reporter 43 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00-- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll start with the gubernatorial 
appointees to the University of California Board of Regents. I 
believe Chair of the Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee, 
Senator Alquist, was going to open this segment. 

SENATOR ALQUIST: I'm here this morning, Mr. Chairman 
and Members, to introduce and recommend the confirmation of 
Lester Lee and Ward Connerly to the Board of Regents of the 
University of California. 

Both of these gentlemen have outstanding records in 
business and in their professions. They have been like a breath 
of fresh air on the Board of Regents in the months that they 
have served there, and they are probably the best appointments 
that Governor Wilson has made in the three and a half years that 
he ' s been Governor . 

So, I would urge you to confirm these two gentlemen 
to this position. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator. 

I guess the appropriate order would be to ask 
Mr. Connerly to join us first. You seem to be first in the 
batter's box, sir. 

You might want to begin with any opening statement 
that just summarizes your perspectives and qualifications. 

MR. CONNERLY: Thank you, Senator. 

First, let me thank Senator Alquist for his 
consenting to introduce us to you. It's a source of great 
comfort to me to have someone with his background, and 



dedication, and service to this state to place his imprimatur on 
my appointment. 

I also want to thank the Governor for honoring me 
with this appointment. I didn't ask for this. I had just 
completed a year of service as a member of the Competitiveness 
Council, and I needed a breather because I'd been away from my 
business for one year. But I've known Pete Wilson for a long 
time, and breather is not part of his vocabulary, it seems. So, 
it was with some agony that I paused and considered the issue of 
appointment to the Board of Regents. 

After looking at the challenges that the University 
faces, I came to the conclusion that there is nothing more that 
I would rather do than to offer some service to my state in this 
regard, and the last 11 months have ratified the wisdom, I 
think, of doing that. It has been a challenge. The years ahead 
are going to be equally more challenging because there are 
changes that we have to make on that Board. 

There is no greater public trust, in my view, in 
California than higher education and the University of 
California. And it's something that I have developed a high 
affection for and am eager to get on with the business of 
governing the — playing my role in governing the University of 
California. 

So, it's with that background, Mr. Chairman, that I 
am delighted to be here and appreciate your considering me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Connerly, historically, the 



student fees, costs, that are not directly related to 
instruction, such as athletic events and health care, have risen 
tremendously in the last few years. The UC has proposed a fee 
increase of $620 per year, 18 percent. And for the first time 
ever, they tied student fees to instruction tuition. 

How do you decide what to increase, and at the same 
time, the salaries of the administrators are outrageously going 
up? 

It seems to me we're defeating the purpose of our 
educational system when we, perhaps, are denying some of the 
students entrance into the University system or college system 
because of the lack of funds, and at the same time the 
administrators are getting salaries that are higher than the 
Governor. You can never convince me that their responsibility 
is greater than that of the Governor. 

How do you determine the fee increases that you have 
provided the last few years for the students? 

MR. CONNERLY: Senator, let me just kind of give you 
some perspective that I bring to that. 

The University of California is, obviously, an 
institution of great prestige. Quality is sort of the hallmark 
of the University, and we pride ourselves on that brand name of 
the University of California and the quality that we hold. 

When the economy of California took a turn south 
three years ago, almost four years ago, and the Legislature and 
the Governor had to necessarily cut back on the funding to the 
University of California, the University still felt that we had 
an obligation to maintain quality. Whatever that terms means, 



we felt that we had an obligation to maintain quality. 

So, the administration has brought to the University 
proposals that were designed to fill the void of the revenue 
that we lost. The belief is that if we don't maintain the 
salaries that we're providing, we will lose the quality of 
faculty and administrators that we have. 

Now, I don't happen to share that view, but I'm still 
burdened with that because I'm a member of the Board of Regents, 
and once the Board votes, whether I'm on the losing side or the 
winning side, I have to carry the burden of the decision that 
the majority makes, because we are governed by a majority. 

But I must tell you that the decision that we face 
right now is the most crucial decision that we will ever make 
because, on the one hand, we have this level of quality that I 
think the people want us to maintain, but we also have the fact 
that access is being influenced. And everytime, in my view, we 
increase fees, we're diminishing access. It's like a 
teeter-totter: access on the one hand, and quality on the 
other. 

And I would rather, and this is probably heretical to 
say, but I would rather have a "B+" University of California 
that the masses can attend rather than to have an "A" University 
of California that only the rich can attend. 

Now, my colleagues, many of them won't agree with 
that, but that's where I come down. I'd prefer access. I have 
voted consistently in favor of ensuring access. 

Now, your question was: how do we determine that. 

Largely it ' s determined by what we think we need to 






maintain that quality, and what we're getting from the state. 
When the state reduces its funding, we have to fill that void 
with fees, at least that's the perception, that we have to fill 
that void with fees. 

I believe that we can look at other things. We can 
look at cost containment. We can look at greater productivity. 
We can look at a number of things. 

But that ' s the methodology that we use . 

SENATOR AYALA: Maybe we can get the professors to 
work more than an hour or two a week for instruction purposes. 
I know that they will probably look down on that, but when you 
talk about productivity, we ought to go after that. 

And I agree totally that we would prefer a "B+" 
institution and allow access to a lot of students than to have 
an "A" institution that nobody can attend. 

How do you propose to vote in the future in terms of 
the tremendous administrative salaries that we're paying, and 
the perception up and down the state that you folks don ' t know 
what you're doing? I'm sorry to say that, but I know that's not 
true. I know that you people are professional; you have your 
own businesses, successful, and all that, so I think that's not 
the case. But the perception up and down the state is that the 
Regents of the Board really don't know what they're doing when 
they gave these people — the perception is that if it was your 
money, you wouldn't do that. But since it's tax dollars, who 
cares? 

MR. CONNERLY: I know that that perception is out 
there. I think that the University has certainly suffered 



greatly, in my view, in the last few years as a result of a 
number of decisions that were made, some recent, I think. I'm 
very much aware of that, and I don't think it's worthwhile for 
us to deny that we've lost a lot of confidence in the public's 
mind. 

My own view is that I'm not convinced that we're 
really going to suffer this great erosion of quality by taking a 
hard look at salaries. I'm not opposed to holding the line on 
salaries, I'll tell you right now. I think that our whole 
salary structure needs to be examined. 

I know that in the private sector, we don't say: we 
have this person making this much, and then 10 percent below 
that, somebody else, and 10 percent below that. Frequently, 
there's a major gap between the top and the next level. 

Our whole structure is a pyramid that's almost 10 
percent up, each layer, and I think we've go to hold the line on 
that. 

And I'm not afraid to take a vote in favor of that 
once I've looked at the facts and am so persuaded. 

SENATOR AYALA: I realize there's packages that are 
approved by, you know, other Boards that are binding on you as 
well, and others to come in the next few years. I think that's 
the problem. We bind future Boards with some contracts with 
these individuals that are very hard to really relate to them. 
And yet, we're bound by a former contract that we cannot 
resolve. 

How do you intend to do it in the future? Are you 
going to water down some of the contracts that you provide these 



administrators? 

MR. CONNERLY: Let me just say one thing. 

I know that the Legislature and the public is awfully 
anxious that we get on with the business of reforming the 
institution and getting into the real world. 

You need to understand, I think, that we need to 
exercise some caution. We don't really want to jump and make 
decisions just on the basis of what we happen to believe at the 
moment is the case. 

The University, for good or bad, operates on the 
basis of shared governance. The Regents share governing with 
the administration. The administration shares it with faculty 
and, to a lesser extent, students and other members of the 
University family. 

Because of that concept of shared governance, things 
don't happen very rapidly in the University of California. 
Progress happens inch, by inch, by inch. It's going to take a 
lot of time, I think, before we change the culture of the Board 
of Regents where we can really examine a lot of the things that 
have occurred in the past . 

I think that there is a majority there to do that. 
I'm convinced that there is a majority to do that. I'll tell 
you right now, if there wasn't, I wouldn't want to be confirmed, 
because I don't want to sit there for the next 11 years being 
one person out there crying no and voting no on the losing side 
of every vote that's taken. 

SENATOR AYALA: I recognize that the University of 
California and Stanford, and other good universities, are 



8 

considered tops in the world in terms of the academics, and we 
don ' t want to water that down . 

But I don't think that providing these administrators 
and these other folks the tremendous salaries will improve that 
or water it down. I think we should concentrate, like you say, 
on other areas that are not — well, like we have to do it here. 
The same thing; we have the same problem here. We don't want to 
water down services, but on the other hand, we have to remove 
some of them because we can't afford to continue paying for what 
we ' re doing out there . 

MR. CONNERLY: Also, give us a little time. I mean, 
show a little patience with us . It may appear to you in some 
cases that salaries are outrageous, but let us really go in and 
examine them. 

We don't want to play Russian Roulette here with the 
University's future. We really want to be cautious and to take 
a look at all of the things. 

But the most important thing is , we have to be 
prepared to examine . We have to be prepared to do that . 

SENATOR AYALA: I have no choice but to be patient. 

Thank you. 

MR. CONNERLY: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Connerly, how would you 
characterize or describe the culture that you've indicated needs 
some review and eventual change? Could you describe the current 
culture and the direction you'd wish to take it? 

MR. CONNERLY: Senator, as I said, we have one of 
shared governance. And when you recognize that — and when 



times are good, and the fountain of money is flowing freely to 
the University of California, shared governance works well. 

When you have to make tough decisions, it's very 
difficult to convene this big community to make those tough 
decisions . 

I believe that the administration — and we have an 
excellent administration. Jack Peltason is the right man for 
the times. But there are pressures within the institution on 
the administration that I don't think that they can respond as 
quickly as I, as an activist kind of person, would like to see 
them respond. Plus the fact, in addition to that whole concept 
of shared governance, we have this collegial atmosphere of 
Regents that come on, and you're sort of seduced by the 
trappings of the office, if I can be candid with you, and you 
come into that, and you're influenced by all the trappings of 
the office. You don't want to micro-manage, which is another 
term that we hear a lot about. You don't want to show any lack 
of confidence in the administration. 

So, all of that builds an environment in which, as 
Regents, we, of our of accord — not that anybody is telling us: 
hey, keep your mouth shut — but of our own accord, we're very 
reluctant to come forward. 

And I'm not the only one that senses that. I mean, a 
lot of my colleagues also sense that. That's no one's fault but 
our own, and it goes to our understanding of what it means to be 
a trustee of a public trust, of a public institution. 

That culture right now has to be changed so that we 
really understand what it means to govern. 



10 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good general thought. 

I happened to note, in looking at your vita, that you 
were studying political theory in 1962. Me, too. And I can 
tell from the language that that still has lingered. 

MR. CONNERLY: But I also practice it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good. Me, too, I hope. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anyhow, Jacobson, Sheldon Wolin 
and Schaar that were the three in my universe, that's part of 
your responsibility. 

Let me ask you about these two particular ongoing 
issues, and how this desired change in the culture might be 
impacted. 

One relates to the salary budget kind of discussions 
that Senator Ayala had touched on, and that is to look at the 
ten-year trend. We find that the administrative salaries have 
increased at about twice the level, a little under 10 percent, 
of the faculty salaries, which are about six. 

That seems topsy-turvy to me. If the function of the 
University is mostly to teach, the administration is there to 
support that, not vice-versa. 

And I would ask you to just comment in any way on 
that trend, and how you feel about it, and what you would expect 
might be, if anything, done about it. 

MR. CONNERLY: I'm not sure what we're going to be 
able to do about it. 

I don't agree with the trend. I don't agree with it 
at all. 



11 

As I indicated, I think that the pyramid that we've 
created is one that is going to be very difficult for us to 
change without exacting an awful lot of pain. I'm prepared to 
exact that pain, personally. 

I just think that it's okay to pay the President, the 
Chancellors, if you will, the top dog in the institution, the 
high — a salary sufficient enough to attract that person. 

I think you can drop down, however, from that and 
have quite a bit of a gap between the top person and the next 
person. I think that we're heavy in the middle-management side. 
And it's largely because of this ladder, this pyramid. 
Everybody starts down from the top. We have the top salary, and 
then 10 percent below that, and 10 percent below that, and so 
you get a lot of — not fat — you get a lot of salaries in 
between there that I think are probably out of line with the 
private sector. They're out of line with the realities of 
California. 

They were not five years ago, but given the 
down-sizing that has taken place in this economy, in every 
sector of our economy, and with the University not doing that, 
with the administration not really down-sizing the way we are — 
we've pushed people out through early retirement and other 
things — we haven't made the structural reforms that we need to 
make. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: A second trend I wanted to inquire 
about relates to the statutory and stated goals of having the 
University student body reflect as much as possible the 
diversity of the state. 



12 

As you know, the percentages of Afro-American and 
Latino graduates is about one-half to one-third of the similar 
demographic characteristics of California. 

What thoughts do you have about that situation and 
possible, if any, solutions? 

MR. CONNERLY: The University needs an awful lot of 
help at K-12 and other places before they get to us. The 
University can do all that it can to reach out and try to 
recruit people to the University, but you have to give us that 
pool of candidates to begin with. 

I think that we need to start — and part of this is 
fees. We need to instill in people that sense of wanting to go 
to college. 

There wasn't a day that I lived growing up when my 
grandmother, with a switch, didn't stand beside me and say, 
"You're going to do your studies to go to college." 

We have lost, I think, that sense of dedication to 
higher education. It's not just the University; it's the whole 
society. People, I think, are believing that the University is 
there for middle-income white kids, and the whole idea of the 
State of California helping to prepare people throughout the 
economy to go to college is eroding. We're losing it. 

Now, we can reach in through affirmative action and 
bring some of them in there, but you have to do a better job as 
a society in getting them ready to come to the University of 
California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there a legitimate role for 
some of the affirmative action efforts in your view? 



13 

MR. CONNERLY: I think there's a legitimate role for 
that . 

I think with regard to affirmative action, we need to 
start examining that. I'm not altogether pleased with the 
results. 

If you look at our faculty, for example, we've gotten 
the numbers up. We have people in the door; we have the numbers 
up. We've changed the culture of the University. But a lot of 
the people that are there, minorities that are there, are in 
peripheral positions. They're in Affirmative Action Officer 
positions; they're in Student Services. They're not in the 
mainstream of the University. 

So, I think we need to take a hard look at 
affirmative action, for example. And I take some heat for that. 
But if we're going to be critical of the whole University, we 
have to be critical of everything; examine all of it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What is it in the affirmative 
action universe that you would be concerned about? 

MR. CONNERLY: I'm concerned — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mentioned the one, that it 
might not be genuine enough, or mainstream enough. What else? 
Anything else? 

MR. CONNERLY: That's the main thing. I'm really 
concerned, and I have some personal problems, with the idea of, 
if all things are not equal -- if all things are not equal -- 
for us to give what amounts to preferential treatment. 

Once the culture has been changed, if we admit that 
the culture has been culture has been changed, I am not one who 



14 

believes that we go back and that we protect, or that we correct 
past sins. That's just a personal view. 

I subscribe very much to the idea of individual 
worth, and I'm very concerned that in the University and other 
places, that we are, in fact, beginning to discriminate against 
people because of our desire for preferential treatment. That 
is a personal belief on my part. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Where does that manifest itself? 

MR. CONNERLY; I think it manifests itself in some of 
our hiring decisions. Right now, we're looking at Chancellor 
candidates. And I don't want to betray what we're doing there, 
but I'm seeing practices that disturb me, based on my own 
personal sense of values . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's my understanding you did 
oppose or vote against a student fee increase, or a 
recommendation for that. 

MR. CONNERLY: You're correct there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Others? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: First of all, let me say that I'm 
very impressed with what I've seen in your activity on the 
Board . 

You say that the atmosphere inhibits Regents from 
coming forward, but it hasn't inhibited you. I've seen 
statements attributed to you severely criticizing actions of the 
Board. I think that's very healthy, but it takes a lot of guts, 
too, because you have that collegiality to worry about. I would 
urge you to continue that. 

Also, you stood alone on the fee issue; didn't you? 



15 

MR. CONNERLY: Regent Morris Roe and I were alone. 

But I think that my colleague, Lester Lee -- and he 
can speak for himself — but the way the vote took place, it 
took place in an atmosphere there where the committee vote was 
being voted upon, and there was a whole package of votes that 
took place. And I am told by some of my colleagues that had the 
votes been severed, that the student fee issue may have had a 
different configuration of votes than it had. 

But for the record, I know that Regent Morris Roe and 
I were the only ones who voted against those increases . 

SENATOR PETRIS: On affirmative action, as one who 
strongly supported it through the years, I know that mistakes 
are going to be made. I'm reminded of Franklin D. Roosevelt's 
paraphrasing of Dante: It's better for government to make 
mistakes in pursuit of a noble goal than to be frozen in its icy 
indifference to the problems of people. 

So, I'd rather have the affirmative action in place, 
and have you working to improve it, and us working to improve 
it, than not having embarked on it in the first place. 

Actually, the fact that you're here was influenced 
greatly, I'm sure, either subliminally or directly, by the 
climate of affirmative action. I mean, there's nobody else on 
that Board appointed by a Governor who looks like you. I think 
that's deplorable. Willie Brown is there, but he's not 
appointed by the Governor; that's by virtue of his office. 

I'd feel more comfortable if there were more persons 
of your stature, first of all, in business, and in your 
appreciation of the importance of the academy and our 



16 

universities, and of your independence and independent thinking, 
who are also of your particular ethnic or racial background, 
too. They're out there. We just haven't reached out to them. 

In your reviewing of affirmative action, I would hope 
that you would bring out those good things and try to make 
improvements, rather than be persuaded to down-grade it or 
eliminate it. I don't think that's what you advocate. 

MR. CONNERLY: That's not what I'm saying. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now on the fees. I've said this 
before, and I want to repeat it. 

Actually, I was late here because I was interviewed 
by a T.V. person in which I made the statement that one of our 
solutions should be increasing taxes. People don't say that, 
and they're afraid of the "T" word. 

But I think the Regents ought to be talking about 
that. The Governor approved a tax increase in his first year. 
I thought he was downright heroic in doing so. We also made 
terrible, terrible cuts to make up the $14 billion shortfall in 
that first year. 

He showed a lot of courage, and fought with his own 
party to accomplish it. And I think the Governor is a very 
decent person who wants to do the right thing, particularly with 
education, but he doesn't have the climate to give him 
encouragement and support. He doesn't have it in his own party, 
first of all. He will have it in the general public if enough 
leaders, so-called opinion makers, will talk about it more. 

And it seems to me that to the Regents individually 
get a chance to chat with the Governor -- he's at the meetings 



17 

most of the time — if they agree, they ought to show that 
support. It would make it easier for the Governor to lead the 
way, or at least approve what we might be trying to do. 

I don't see how we can come out of this fiscal 
problem without raising more money, more revenue, not for the 
whole amount, but for a substantial part, through raising taxes. 

All this stuff about down-sizing, and cutting, and 
this and that. We're never going to recover if we keep on going 
the way we are. We're losing some of the best professors. You 
know the story better than we do. You're actively involved in 
it. It's horrifying to me what we've done to our higher 
education system because we're responding to the traditional 
remedy in hard times, and that is cut. 

Business people are very proud that they do that. I 
wouldn't be proud of that. I'd try to figure out other ways to 
do it. 

There are other countries, for example, in the 
private sector, when they face that problem, they'll cut down in 
other ways and not lay off a whole lot of people, you know. 
Japan in particular has shown tremendous resilience in 
protecting its employees and continuing the production, maybe at 
a slower pace, maybe this, maybe that. 

But we're ready with the axe. We just seem to love 
that axe, and we just love to cut and cut. 

And when you talk about the culture of the Regents, I 
hope that part of the culture might be given some change, too. 

On salaries, in the private sector, we have the 
widest gap between the top level and the bottom level of any 



18 

industrial country in the world. It's astonishing. That's part 
of your culture on the Board. I mean, that's the way the world 
works. It doesn't have to be that way. I think we might want 
to review that as well. 

Actually, I was going to ask you a bunch of 
questions, but I got on the soap box instead. So, let me just 
say — 

MR. CONNERLY: Enjoy yourself, Senator. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. You're a gracious 
audience. 

Let me just check one thing here. I may have one 
question. You've answered a lot of my questions in the course 
of your statement, actually. 

Let me ask you, on this question of student fees and 
tuition, it actually amounts to tuition, do you see another 
round of increases this coming year? It was announced in 
December. How long is this going to continue? Is there going 
to be any — 

MR. CONNERLY: The fee model that was given to us, 
and I would strongly urge you to read the analysis that was done 
by Regent Morris Roe and Sara Swan with the Student Association, 
which is just brilliant, the thrust of their analysis was that 
there was no end to the projection of fee increases. 

And that's one of the things that compelled me to say 
no, we've just got to say no here, because there is no end to 
it. It's almost $600 as far into the future as we can. 

And the reason is that it's based on the notion that 



19 

if the economy doesn't recover, the fees are basically the place 
that we're going to get the funds for that shortfall. 

And I think that we need to be looking for other ways 
of doing it. If it's cost containment, or whatever it is, we 
need to put the discipline on the administration to find other 
ways to do it . 

So, there is no end in sight right now to this fee 
increase. 

Now, I believe, however, that if we can demonstrate 
that the increase in fees is having a deleterious effect on 
access, I think that there is a growing majority within that 
Board next year to say: no, we're not going to do it, and 
certainly we're not going to do it to the extent of $600, which 
is what's projected right now. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, it seems to me the studies 
have already shown that impact in the other branches . I don ' t 
know about a study of UC, but it had a terrible impact on the 
access at the community college level and the State University 
level . I don ' t think the UC impact would be that much 
different. 

MR. CONNERLY: Well, what we're seeing, Senator, if I 
might interrupt, is, we're being told, really, by the 
statisticians that enrollment last year compared to this year is 
really not down; that it's up. 

That really doesn't tell the story. It's what is the 
universe of eligible applicants in relation to those that are 
enrolling. 

I think it's deterring people from enrolling in the 



20 

University. And it's the participation rate that I think is 
down. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You might have the numbers, but the 
question is: what's the mix? 

MR. CONNERLY: That's right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And are we fulfilling our purpose, 
our mission. 

MR. CONNERLY: That's right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And the way you described that 
earlier, I think, is absolutely beautiful. We have strayed very 
far from the original mission of accessibility with the maximum 
mix so that people of all categories would be able to go. 

I'm sure they can find, even at increased rates, they 
can find lots of students from all over the country who'd be 
happy to come, and they figure it's cheaper than going to school 
at home, even in the public schools. 

The Regent you mentioned is a student Regent; right? 

MR. CONNERLY: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: There weren't any other Regents that 
joined in that, I suppose? 

MR. CONNERLY: The formal vote was two of us. There 
were two of us that voted no. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's kind of sad. 

MR. CONNERLY: But I think that belies the anguish 
that was on the Board. I just want to give you some insight 
there . 

That vote is misleading. And I talked to a lot of my 
colleagues before and after the vote, and there were a lot of 



21 

people that were on the fence there . And I think that next 
year, if we can make the case that we should not be looking at 
enrollment this year versus next year, but rather, what is the 
pool out there of people who could go to the University of 
California in relation to those that enrolled, and if we can 
show that there's been a significant effect, I think you're 
going to see a different vote. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I hope so, but you mentioned earlier 
it's beginning to look more and more like a private school as we 
increase, because the pool is shrinking in terms of the 
broadness of the pool. It's shrinking toward the more affluent, 
more and more affluent. Much easier for them to pay the costs 
than the others . 

The other thing that worries me about it, and I'd 
like to ask you to comment on it, is, they now seem to be 
shifting to: well, we're going to charge the students a certain 
percentage of the cost. Cal State says one-third of the cost. 
We've never talked about it in those terms before. 

Again, an old story, but I think it bears repeating. 
When I graduated from high school, we weren't out of the 
Depression yet. It was 1940. I was the only one from my high 
school class — admittedly a small one, McClymonds High in 
Oakland — to go to the University immediately. Two or three 
others went in later; the rest went to work. And they put me 
through the University with their taxes. 

I mean, that's always been the way it is. The 
funding of the University, higher education system, the public 
part of it is a duty of the citizens of this state. They are 



22 

the direct beneficiaries. The economic gains we have had just 
from UC alone, just from one campus, let alone all nine, have 
been enormous . 

That hasn't played out very well — hasn't been 
played out very well, I guess, by the University and its PR. 
It's put out information, but that message hasn't gotten across. 

So if we forget about the lofty goals of having a 
better educated public, ad so forth, and we just talked in terms 
of the economic benefits to this state that is offered by our 
higher education system, we'd get a lot more support, and a lot 
more likelihood of substituting fee increases by putting in 
taxes instead. I just think it's a more fair way to go. 
Everybody takes part, and the University benefits. 

And the dwindling percentage that has been going from 
the state to the University budget will start going back up 
again. It's just been going down for years now. 

MR. CONNERLY: Let me just comment on some of the 
things you said. 

First of all, 30 cents out of every dollar -- and 
Steve or Betty can correct me here if I'm wrong -- but 30 cents 
out of every dollar that we take in in fees is in fact channeled 
back to lower-income students. So, we are in fact imposing an 
education tax, if you will, that we're redistributing to 
lower-income students. That is what we're doing. 

The thing that is happening, it seems to me, however, 
is that we are really having a very, very serious effect on 
middle-income families. We talk about the wealthy who will only 
be able to attend. 



23 

I tell the story about a family earning $80,000 a 
year that called me, and I met with them and talked to them 
about their budget. And they opened their books to me. These 
people take home about $5,000 a month. They live in Modesto. 
One member of the family commutes to the Bay Area because 
housing costs are less in Modesto. Two cars: one paid for, one 
isn't. One student going to Davis. They have an equity loan on 
their house in addition to their first mortgage. They send her 
about $300 a month. They don't have $50 a month left over for a 
$600 annual fee increase. The money isn't there. It just isn't 
there . 

So, when we increase fees, we're affecting that 
family. This isn't a wealthy family. This is a family that's 
living in a very modest style of life that is being priced out 
of the University. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's why all of us should be 
paying instead of those who happen to have kids in school. 

You know, people say to me, when I go out on these 
bond issues, for example, "I don't have any kids in school." 
Well, I don't, either. I've never had a kid. I wasn't lucky 
enough to have children, so I've never had a kid in school. But 
I consider every child in this state that's in the school system 
my child from the standpoint of my duty. 

And that's the attitude, I think, we need to put 
across to get more support. 

MR. CONNERLY: I agree with you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: One of the questions occasionally 



24 

asked by colleagues and press comment would have us somehow 
consider the community involvement of appointees to positions of 
this sort. One segment of community involvement has been 
political participation, and it's, I guess, both subject to 
commendation and criticism. The commendation being that people 
are participating in a system that suffers from a lack of it, 
and the criticism seems to be that those like yourself who have 
been very generous, particularly in a number of civic contexts 
and at campaign times for certain people might have sacrificed 
independence when they involve themselves in that extensive of a 
way. 

I'd ask you to simply, and I don't mean it as either 
commendation or criticism, really, but analysis, to offer any 
thought that comes to mind as to the requisite independence of 
the Regents. I think that's a shared value. And whether it's a 
legitimate worry, either systemically or, perhaps, just 
individually, Mr. Connerly, might be a fair way to discuss the 
matter. 

When you've been woven into the Governor's campaign 
effort in a significant way, are you capable of being critical 
of gubernatorial policies as they affect the University, and 
your duties as a Regent? 

MR. CONNERLY: Senator, that's a very fair question, 
and let me just respond to it. 

If I were on the outside looking at this whole 
nomination of Connerly to the Board of Regents, and I saw where 
he had contributed — I think the record shows $108,000 or 
something — to Pete Wilson, I would be alarmed, and I would 



25 

wonder: how can this guy represent the public, being there, 
with that kind of attachment to the Governor? 

I have known Governor Wilson since 1968. I was 
serving in the State Department of Housing as a civil servant. 
I didn't know him at the time. I knew then-Speaker Bob Monigan 
for a brief period in California's history. Bob Monigan had 
Pete Wilson call me, because Pete Wilson had just been appointed 
Chair of the Assembly Housing Committee. 

I went to work for him for two years . We were 
sitting in a restaurant in Seattle, and he was talking about — 
we were talking about what were my objectives, what was my 
future. And I said, "Well, after I leave this committee, 
perhaps I'll go back to the State Department of Housing, and I 
might be a division chief, or maybe some day I'll be a Director 
of the Department." 

And he said, "Why are you limiting your horizons to 
government? " 

Well, I'm a product of the '60s from the educational 
system. And in those days, I think that minorities, 
particularly blacks, felt that government was a safe haven. 
Government was a safe harbor. You didn't expect any 
discrimination in government. So, my own career horizons were 
limited to government. 

And the conversation we had at that conference in 
that restaurant there was a defining moment in my own career. 
It caused me to think about getting out of government and 
forming my own business. And that discussion had a profound 
impact on me. 



26 

Later on, I did go into business, my wife and I, in 
1973. We opened up a consulting business, and California's been 
good to me. And I trace it back to that day in 1969, when I met 
with Pete Wilson. 

I have supported him since then. He has kept in 
touch with my own career. And yes, I've contributed. 

But I'll tell you this. I have a greater obligation 
to the people of California when they put me there as a member 
of the Board of Regents. And I have consistently said: by my 
actions, I can be my own person. I will vote what I believe is 
right. 

The Governor has never called me to say, "Ward, I 
think you ought to vote this way or that way, or whatever. " I 
don't expect that he would do that. 

The only comments that I've had from anybody on the 
Governor's staff is, they want us to move on with those reforms 
that he gave us at that joint meeting of the CSU Trustees and 
the Board of Regents last year. 

But I think that I have demonstrated that I can vote 
the way I believe as a member of the Board of Regents. That is 
a public trust, and I've sworn to uphold that. I think the 
record speaks for itself on that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I agree. 

MR. CONNERLY: But I do believe in participating in 
our society, politically and other ways as well. 

Last year, I was the honorary Chair of the American 
Lung Association, the Celebrity Waiters' Luncheon. It took more 
hours from my time than I care to admit, but those are the kind 



27 

of things that I think you do if you're a member of the 
community. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your response is thoughtful and 
balanced. Thank you. 

Other questions from Members? 

Are there people in the audience that would wish to 
comment? 

MR. MEYER: Senator Lockyer, Members of the 
Committee, Paul Meyer, representing the Consulting Engineers and 
Land Surveyors of California. 

Our members really have a lot of involvement with UC 
engineering departments, and a high percentage of our members 
come from there. 

We've also gotten to know Ward Connerly very well 
over the last few years, both through business and through the 
Competitiveness Council. We can just speak completely for his 
integrity, and most importantly, his can-do attitude. I mean, 
he's really a performer. It's not empty rhetoric. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Anyone else who wishes to comment? 

MS. ALEXANDER: Good morning. My name is Kim 
Alexander, and last year I came before this Committee on behalf 
of California Common Cause to express our concerns about the 
constitutionality of appointments to the UC Board of Regents. 

Today I am here representing myself as a California 
taxpayer who, like many others, cares very deeply about the 
direction and the future of the UC. 

I urge you to confirm Ward Connerly ' s appointment to 



28 

the UC Board of Regents. I know the UC Student Association 
representatives would like to be here, too, to speak in support 
of his appointment but are prohibited from doing so under 
California Supreme Court rulings. 

I was initially skeptical about Mr. Connerly ' s 
appointment to the Board. I found it hard to believe that he 
would be any different from other Regents who have contributed 
large sums of money to their appointers. 

Throughout the past year, I was delighted and 
surprised to learn of Mr. Connerly ' s efforts on the Board. I'm 
also pleased that, for the first time in history, the Regents 
Advisory Commission convened, as is constitutionally mandated. 

I support Mr. Connerly' s appointment because he 
brings a fresh voice and a critical eye to the Board of Regents . 
He is a Regent who makes decisions with students' interests 
first in mind. He has demanded fiscal accountability for the UC 
and has questioned the Board's decision to raise student fees in 
lieu of long-term economic planning. 

Mr. Connerly has also criticized Board decisions made 
behind closed doors and out of the public eye. His sense of 
public accountability is desperately needed on the Board of 
Regents . 

He is unique in that he is an active Regent who 
doesn't merely add this distinguished title to his resume and 
attend meetings. Mr. Connerly serves on the Board as a genuine 
public servant who wants to contribute his talents and energy to 
our state. 

I strongly urge this Committee to support 



29 

■ 

confirmation of Mr. Connerly. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Any other comments? 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator Petris 
to confirm the confirmation or recommend such to the Floor. 

Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 
Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, and we expect 11 good 
years out of you. 

MR. CONNERLY: Thank you, Senator. I hope so, too. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our next confirmation question has 
to do with Dr. Lee. 

If you'd join us, sir. You may also wish to make any 
opening statement at all that would help us get to know you a 
little. 

DR. LEE: I think probably that would be in order, 
Mr. Chairman, because I guess I look even more different than 



30 

the person before me. 

[Laughter. ] 
DR. LEE: I think it probably would be a good idea if 

I give everyone a little summary about my personal background so 

that you can better understand where I come from, and what I 

stand on some of the issues and so forth. 

First, you know, I'm extremely interested in the 
educational system. I came to this country as a student in 
1950, attending the University of Illinois, and I obtained my 
degrees down there in engineering. And I went to MIT for 
another year, which, to my surprise, you know, the cost is a lot 
higher than I could afford. So, I took another way out by 
taking a page out out of the traditional American spirit, that I 
come over to the West Coast, working for a company who are 
willing to support me going through my Ph.D. program at 
Stanford, which I obtained it on a part-time basis with that 
kind of financial aid. 

So basically, I'm personally very familiar with the 
difficulty of going to school and spending about ten years 
through my whole college activities. 

And over the years, I have also four children that 
have been beneficiaries of the University of California and the 
California higher education system. I have two daughters went 
through Berkeley, and the one from UCLA, and the one son from 
San Jose State College. So, many of my kids has been associated 
with the University, which gave me a very good way of getting to 
know the University and some of the things that's currently 
happening. 

This is just my personal background. 



31 

Professionally, I have also been very active, along 
with my wife, in a lot of community activities. The gentleman 
before me testified that it's important to participate and be 
active, and this definitely needed in some of the people of my 
ethnic background. And we have been trying to get them more 
interested, not only in participating in civic affairs, but more 
importantly, in trying to put more emphasis in education. 

So, many of the organizations that you see that I am 
associated on my resume has been providing scholarships, 
financial aid, and all this type of thing to the University, and 
to encourage the kids to go to the University. 

And from the business point of view, I started off as 
a regular engineer and worked my way up, as any other people in 
the Silicon Valley. Caught the entrepreneur, you know, fever, 
and started my own company. It has been fairly successful as a 
small-size manufacturer in high tech products. 

Being in the highly competitive situation in the 
Silicon Valley area, we have to constantly react and adjust, and 
do a lot of business-type of decisions which form the backbone 
of my background. 

On the other hand, I do have a lot more connection 
with respect to how to — looking to the higher educational 
value, or the technology achievements of the University, and 
being able to support some of the programs in text transfer, in 
the management of the organization, and this type of thing that 
is needed to keep the University of its toes. 

To cut a long story short, some of the things that 
you will be interested in knowing is the fact that how do I 



32 

stand, and why should I be on the Board. 

I think I can bring to the Board the different 
perspective of an immigrant, of someone that struggled to get 
education myself, and someone that are concerned about the next 
generation, because we, in this particular the Asian community, 
obviously has a lot more interest and belief in higher 
education. We like to keep the higher education as the 
motivation and the driving force of, not only our economy, but 
also the future of California. 

Over the past 11 years [sic], I had the privilege of 
serving on the Board and observed a lot, and learned a lot. 
Some of the questions that asked previously was very, very dear 
in my heart. And I have to admit that I wasn't as vocal as the 
gentleman before me, but on the other hand, I can assure you 
that we all worked hard to make sure that the University is 
turning around. 

One of the key reasons, I think it's brought up on 
the testimony, is that it has been very different type of 
operation in the past. And we're coming in a situation where we 
have to do a lot more work to turn the thing around or operating 
in a much more different fashion than it has been done before. 

I do not agree on the huge amount of salaries that 
are given to the administrators, but unfortunately, some of them 
were in the cases of a situation that has carried over from the 
passed on situation. 

And I really do not believe in making hasty decisions 
such that it would affect the morale of the overall 
administration, because this is a $10 billion operation which we 



33 

cannot turn it around very, very quickly. On the other hand, I 
would like to work, which I have been in the past, with the 
administrators first, and my colleagues second, to make sure 
that we can turn them around without causing a lot of 
disturbance in the operation of the University, which I consider 
as very important to keep the integrity up. 

We had three — we had four -- we had three early 
retirement plans done already, and we had four student fee 
increases as major steps. Each of them has been extremely 
excessive, has been affecting the operation of the University. 
And we're constantly looking at other ways of accomplishing the 
budget shortfalls so that we can keep the University at its 
premium state. 

In that respect, I have worked with the 
administrators and also worked with the other fellow Regents, to 
make sure that we want to turn this thing around. 

Like the gentleman before me, we will do our job, and 
we'll try to do it as rapidly as we can, but with the least 
amount of damage to the operation of the University. 

With that in mind, I'd like to offer to the Senators 
any questions that you may want to ask. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Questions? Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's a very impressive background. 
It makes it difficult for me to understand why you would support 
a fee increase, since you struggled as a student and faced those 
problems that you indicated. 

DR. LEE: Senator, I think there's two records that I 



34 

have to clear. 

I voted against the salary increase on some of the 
hospital staff people prior to the next vote that you are 
talking about, as far as the fee increase is concerned. 

That particular part was a situation where it's a 
total package of a differential fee increases as well as, you 
know, the $620 fee increase proposed by the administration. And 
the problem as I see on the University budget is the fact that 
we have not been very aggressively pursuing the point that 
Senator Petris just brought up, is the fact how can we get more 
revenue into the system so that we do not have to take the last 
moment type of situations, where the administration or the 
operation of the University used the fee increase as a last 
resort or a short-term solution, which turned out to be a 
long-term problem at this particular point. 

I personally do not like the idea of a fee increase. 
My voting for it was not my agreement to the fee increase, but 
as a compromise to that fee increase. 

We have made it very, very clear to the 
administrators, as well as a number of Regents has expressed the 
same opinion, that we would be trying to stop this type of 
stop-gap measures because we have done it already too much. 

SENATOR PETRIS: In your meetings, have you talked 
about persuading the Governor to support a tax increase as one 
of the sources? 

DR. LEE: We have been doing certain amount of that 
type of work in the past. Obviously, we have to see the 
packages, you know, as to how it's presented and what the 



35 

structure is going to be. And if there's something to go for 
the University, either by tax or any other source of revenues, 
I, as an individual, would be 100 percent supporting it. 

And I appreciated the help from the Senators to bring 
us, you know, that type of solutions or help so that we can keep 
the thing going. 

That doesn't necessarily mean that the University 
should sit on its current situation and not trying to do 
something to improve itself, or stop the escalating salary 
increases that has been going around. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I think it ' d be helpful to the 
Governor if all the Regents said, "We'd like to see you do this, 
and we'll support it," considering the fact that the Regents 
come from many different kinds of business backgrounds and have 
extensive contacts in the business community. It might help 
turn it around from that side, too. Not as the only solution, 
but as part of it. I would urge you to consider that. 

DR. LEE: I would. And I like your idea of not the 
only solution, but one of the possible avenues. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Dr. Lee, I wish you would comment 
a little more on your thoughts about the process of turning the 
University around, and the direction you would hope to take it. 

If you were the captain of the ship, or one of the 
co-captains, because you are, where are we sailing to? What do 
you want it to look like if it's different as a result of your 
efforts? 

DR. LEE: That's very good question, Senator, because 



36 

in the last 11 months, obviously, we have been deluged with all 
the short-term problems that we've been facing, and not having 
the opportunity to really look at the long-term and the overall 
vision of the University. 

And the University is the driving force of our state 
economy and also the working people, that we train them, we 
provided them, and we certainly want it to continue to provide 
the kind of quality of level of education in this particular 
institution. 

And to answer your question about how we can move 
forward, first thing, we have to stop the bleeding, or the 
difficulties that we're currently facing. And some of the 
things that we have not been doing well in the past, we have to 
turn them around first. 

One of the problem we are facing here is the fact 
that the last ten years has been in a growth mode. I mean, that 
this is not different in the business point. When you're in the 
growth mode, that you operate certain things slightly 
differently than when you are in a more constrained mode. And 
this mode change is the first issue that we needed to face and 
have the University turned around. 

We are beginning to do that, Senator, because as you 
know, the new President was on board only one and a half year 
ago, and his two Senior Vice Presidents was only hired about a 
year ago. And so, we have a new administration, but we have an 
old momentum, you know, whether it's in the school, or it's in 
the staff, or in the faculty. We've been turning the around and 
trying to see some of the things that is currently going. 



37 

For instance, our faculty salary used to be way ahead 
of everybody. Now it's falling behind. And we are taking 
measures to make sure that the new hired people are not being 
given the kind of salary that were given to the previous guy 
that he's replacing. I think we have been doing that. 

And I would strongly encourage the people to serve 
the University on a more dedicated basis rather than based on 
the financial incentives. 

And as a businessman, I would convey to the 
administration that we may have to take some gamble in turning 
that thing around to the point where we may lose some people, 
but we'll attract even better qualified and more dedicated 
people to serve on the University. 

I don't know whether I covered all the questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mostly all we can do is try to get 
a sense of who you are and what you stand for, because all these 
issues could be discussed for another year. 

DR. LEE: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Could you reflect, you mentioned 
the faculty salary situation. The relative rates of increase of 
administrators to faculty in UC has been about twice on the 
administrative side to the faculty side over the last decade. 

Now, you obviously weren't there all that time, and 
it's hard to hold you accountable personally, other than that 
there is that trend, and that you did vote for a faculty pay 
cut, which exacerbates that trend, plus administrative 
increases. 

Talk about that a little, I think. 



38 

DR. LEE: Surely. 

The faculty salary level at this stage of the game as 
compared with the other institutions, or the general trend, were 
a little bit behind. We were way ahead, you know, before. 

And as far as the salary on some of the 
administrators goes, it's way out of line in my personal 
opinion. And the reason I'm saying it is the fact that the 
people should serve the University on a more dedicated basis, 
and more challenging basis, than strictly on the financial 
reward basis. 

And over the last year or so, I have looking into 
this salary situation on a more deeper basis. I have obtained 
the listing of all the people that is making a salary, say, in 
excess of $100,000, and trying to look at the reasoning behind 
each one of them, and had offered some of my judgment to the 
administration and suggested that there may be some way to make 
a more equitable adjustment as time goes on. 

And I can assure the panel that the newly hired staff 
are always coming at a level lower than what they are replacing. 
And I think that trend is gradually happening. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Maybe these were not teaching 
employees that are noted in our record, but I think they are, 
sir. 

The point is that in March a year ago, you were among 
those who voted a 3.5 percent salary cut for employees . 

DR. LEE: That's correct. That 3^ percent was 5 
percent at that moment. It's about a year ago. 

That 5 percent actually in reality is actually a 



39 

deferment of salary, because that money would be put back upon 
retirement at a later stage. So, it looks like a cash flow of 5 
percent deferment, and we voted as a total package to balance 
the budget along with the fee increases at that particular 
moment . 

That number was reduced to 3h percent six months 
later, when we had a $50 million infusion from the 
appropriation. So, that was reduced to 3*5 percent. 

Now, at that particular time, just for the record, 
that I have suggested, or at least discussed with many people 
about the fact that, you know, we could leave the 5 percent as 
it is and totally eliminate the $600 fee increases by the 
student. And after careful consideration by the Academic Senate 
and the administration, that we decided we'd put the whole thing 
on a more even basis. That means reduce the fee increases by a 
certain amount, and we reduce the 5 percent to 3*5 percent. 

Now, those are all the compromises being done and it 
made our package passable, or at least it's more acceptable at 
that moment . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Senators? 

Are there people present who would wish to comment on 
the recommendation? 

We're trying to figure out our procedural situation 
here because we have one Member absent . 

MS. MICHEL: Well, you have until Thursday. 

The intention is, when they get out of Committee 
today, if they get out of the Committee, take them up on the 
Senate Floor on Monday, which gives the opportunity for them, if 



40 

there were a problem on Monday, to slip to Thursday. But 
Thursday is the 365th day. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Dr. Lee. We've 
appreciated your visiting with us, and, as Senator Petris had 
indicated, your outstanding personal history. 

You should be very proud of your accomplishments and 
the business that you've created. And I think we all share that 
respect for your history. 

DR. LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We appreciate the chance to meet 
with you, sir. 

Let me just confer with Senator Beverly, if I may. 
[Thereupon a short discussion was 
held off the record.] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Doctor. I think what 
we'll do is make sure that we have all Members present so it 
doesn't disadvantage you in any way, because there seems to be a 
split opinion among the four of us. And it would be to your 
benefit to make sure that we recess the discussion, or continue 
the discussion, on Monday. 

We'll still make the deadlines that are confronting 
us, but I think that would be the appropriate thing to do, and 
that that will be to your benefit, sir. 

DR. LEE: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, we'll not vote today, but have 
a special Rules meeting on Monday for that purpose. 

DR. LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MS. MICHEL: Prior to the Floor session? Is it your 



41 

intent to do something on Monday or wait until Thursday? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think we'll have to wait. We 
could maybe do the one Monday, and then wait for Thursday. 

Do you have a thought on before or after? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: The Floor debate is Thursday? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MS. MICHEL: Right. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: So the nominees are aware, we've 
always joined in a request when one Member of the Rules 
Committee asks that it be held over. 

I think that we ought to schedule the meeting for 
Monday . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, but the question is: before 
or after session? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: We have that Joint Appropriations 
Committee meeting Monday morning. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's right. That's in the 
morning. 

Maybe we'd better do it after session, then, upon 
adjournment. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

MS. MICHEL: You can always meet off the Floor. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Maybe we could meet at 11:30 for 
five minutes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That would be fine with me. 

MS. MICHEL: Do you want Dr. Lee here? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think we've asked the questions, 
unless he wishes to attend. 



42 

So, let's make it 11:30 Monday for the final vote. 
SENATOR BEVERLY: For vote only? 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Unless other Members want to 
comment, but I would be inclined to have it be for vote only. I 
wouldn't want to cut someone off if they felt like they had some 
burning matter. He ought to be present to respond if that does 
happen . 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
12:17 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



43 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

iS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 

this cz^ — } day of February, 1994. 




.EVELYN \J. MI^AK 
/ Shorthand Reporter 



247-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 247-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1994 
11:53 A.M. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAR 2 8 1994 

SAN FRANC -O 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



248-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



o* £ g 

a « z 

CO P 

og^-< cd a. ~ O 

° i &> ,n rr i-h B 

« ! <* ^ & ff'g D 

~ U ' ~*> w ^ o o 

i 5 g e fie z 

&n p C en K) M 



egp o -°° " r 



8 I * ■* g E g 



on 




S"S~ ?S£ i |^§^ Sq:tol 

•g ,0= I : - M g * 

^< 

CD 
CD 



- S " B | § S « S- Q £ iLIFORNIA 

ccrp ^> £ *- p. O S- 

ST l-f 03 03 CD O 

a' ' § £ "03 sr 

b O g. 

03 B ?» 

Bo 



en 



a > £ RY 28, 1994 

A.M. 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 19 94 
11:53 A.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

LESTER H. LEE, Ph.D., Member 
Board of Regents 
University of California 

SENATOR ALFRED ALQUIST 

WARD CONNERLY, Member 
Board of Regents 
University of California 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 

LESTER H. LEE, Ph.D., Member 

Board of Regents 

University of California 1 

Witness in Support; 

SENATOR ALFRED ALQUIST 1 

Statements by DR. LEE 2 

Student Fee Increase Vote 3 

Ability to Operate Independently 4 

Vote on Increasing Pay of Hospital 

Executives 5 

Witness in Support; 

WARDELL CONNERLY, Member 

Board of Regents 

University of California 6 

Intimidating Forum 7 

Ally in Changing University's Direction 8 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re; 

Difficulty of Decision 8 

Statements by SENATOR AYALA re; 

Promise to Students in District 9 

Vote on Increasing Student Fees and 

Administrative Salaries 10 

Statements by SENATOR CRAVEN re; 

Reason for Voting to Increase Student Fees .... 11 

Background and Heritage of Appointee 13 



IV 

INDEX (Continued) 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Vote is Close Call 14 

Impressed with Appointee 14 

Need for Diversity of Opinion and Philosophy 

on Board of Regents 15 

Too Much Deferment to High Level Bureaucrats 

in UC System 15 

Need to Tell Governor and University that 

Changes Are Needed 15 

Commitment to Involve Asian Community in 

Competing for Vacancy on Board 16 

Motion to Confirm 16 

Committee Action 16 

Motion to Send Appointment to Floor without 

Recommendation 16 

Discussion 17 

Committee Action 18 

Termination of Proceedings 18 

Certificate of Reporter 19 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now our final remaining item to 
take up today is that which was put over from last Thursday so 
that we'd have a full panel today and a little more time to 
reflect, and that is the Governor's appointment of Dr. Lee to 
the Regents of the University of California. 

Senator Alquist, did you wish to make a comment, sir? 

SENATOR ALQUIST: Last Thursday, I was here to 
introduce and recommend to you Mr. Lester Lee for confirmation, 
and I still feel that way. 

But after I left the hearing, I found a copy of a 
letter from the American Federation of Teachers, which had 
apparently been delivered just the day before. This is 
certainly highly unusual for institutional lobbyists for an 
institution that's here all the time to delay their opposition 
to an appointment, or to legislation, for that matter. And I 
thought that there were several things in that letter that 
needed to be cleared up. 

The reason for opposing Mr. Lee was, he voted for 3^ 
percent salary cut for UC employees, and he also voted to 
increase student fees an additional $640 for the '93-94 academic 
year, and he still supports raising fees. 

I would point out to you that the University operates 
on the budget that this Legislature makes available to it. And 
of course, we were hampered by some of the decisions by the 
voters and some of the initiatives that have been passed and by 
the ongoing recession that we face. 



If we're going to maintain the University as a world 
class institution, some of these most difficult decisions will 
have to made. And I would point out to you that even with the 
increase in fees, these fees are still below any other state run 
university in the United States. 

These are most difficult choices to make. I think 
that Mr. Lee has demonstrated his courage and understanding in 
his desire to keep California as the world class institution 
that it has been over the years, one of which we can be proud, 
and that to deny confirmation to Mr. Lee would be a serious 
mistake . 

I would also point out to you that he is the first 
person of Chinese ancestry to be named to the Board of Regents . 
Some 25 percent of the student body is now Asian, and I think 
that a failure to confirm Regent Lee would send a very 
unsatisfactory message to the Chinese community in the State of 
California. 

So, I would urge you to give serious thought to this 
confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much, Senator. 

Dr. Lee, I know you'd prepared a letter for us, which 
we've all received, but did you wish to add any additional 
comments at this time? 

DR. LEE: If I may. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You certainly may. Please join 
us . 

DR. LEE: First, I would like to — Mr. Chair and 
Senators, first I would like to thank the Committee for allowing 



me to have a chance to come over here to clarify some of the 
points of your concerns. 

We have been operating in a very difficult period of 
time ever since I joined the University Board of Regents last 
year. And some of the actions that we're doing, as eloquently 
presented by Senator Alquist, was part of the things that led to 
some of the actions that I have taken. 

On the other hand, I do feel obligated to present to 
you where I have been doing this type of thing in terms of being 
able to take the actions on my own hand with respect to this 
budget issue that we have been talking about. 

The student fee increase, as I explained the last 
time, was part of a total package, that we were looking at it as 
a total budget plan. You gentlemen certainly have dealt with 
budget problems before, and I don't need to explain how 
difficult and how hard it is to understand the total package 
that we needed to keep the institution as the world class 
university here in California. 

And my first love and the first dedication is to the 
students and the people of California, and I have to vote on my 
conscience as to what's the best at that particular moment for 
what are we trying to do. In terms of that particular part, 
what we're trying to do is to preserve the University at the 
level of instruction, and the quality of instruction, that we 
can provide to ours students, so that the access to the people 
is not more important than trying to make some budget cuts, such 
that we would deteriorate the University to the point where the 
restoration of the operation would be a lot more costly and 



unfair to the people in California. 

And this position was examined, and I finally voted 
for the total package based on my conviction that as long as the 
people who has the least amount of ability to attend a 
university are helped, this would be something that we can do, 
you know, for the people, for the students that come to the 
University of California. And in that respect, we were assured, 
or at least I'm convinced, that the procedure of putting through 
one-third of the total revenue back to the financial aid package 
would be a tremendous help to reduce the pain, as we say, and 
only with that occurrence did I agree to vote for the package. 
And that was one of the kind of very difficult and very 
troublesome positions that I have taken. 

As to my ability to operate on an independent basis 
and not having the University to fall into the same trap as it 
has been over the past on some of the issues, I have studied 
them very, very carefully, and I explained at the last meeting 
that we are taking a new direction for the University, with the 
new administrators, including the President, the two Vice 
Presidents, the two Senior Vice Presidents, that are new on 
board, and we try to work with them so that we can get them to 
operate on a direction that is not in the same line as we had in 
the past. 

And in that respect, we discussed quite closely, 
because they were hired by the Regents, and they are accounted 
for by the Regents, that we discussed a lot of issues before we 
put them on to the floor. And in that respect, we have done a 
lot of negotiations, suggestions, or compromises, behind the 



doors, which I personally participate quite considerably. And 
one of the typical issues that I can use as an example for my 
own record is essentially on this hospital executive pay 
increase, which was suggested by the University at a certain 
rate, and was not favored by the Regents before it was brought 
to the floor. And when it did go to the floor, it was not to my 
personal satisfaction, even though most of the regents agreed to 
it. 

So, I ended up being one of the five Regents that 
voted no on this particular issue. Now, that did not stop the 
issue being passed, except I did have this particular record to 
show to the Committee that I have acted on my own conscience and 
on my own belief, and certainly the message has been carried 
through to the other Regents as well as the University. 

In terms of the style or presentation, I tend to work 
first with the staff or the administration first in trying to 
make sure that everything we can do, we exercise our utmost 
influence. And by making them aware of the position where the 
Regents wanted to be, we will be able to move the whole thing in 
the right direction. And by doing that, I have more actions 
behind the door than I have the actions on the floor, which 
unfortunately does not give me a good image in the public eye. 

But I can assure you that my dedication to the 
University is certainly above board. I told you before that I 
got through my college education for 12 agonizing years that I 
have to worry about how to support myself and my family. So, 
I'm very sensitive to the students' needs as well as the 
University budget problem. 



And what I will try to do is to make the University 
turn around so that we can take various directions to propose 
new ways to solve the problem, including a lot of the things 
which they have discussed before or things that we have taken to 
the floor. 

And your giving me a chance to serve on the Board 
would certainly bring a total different type of approach to the 
ways that the school has been operating before, and also has 
been judged to account. I would try to operate on the basis of 
what I can do the best for the University, and the best 
representation for the people of the State of California, and 
not necessarily based on my own ethnic background or anything, 
but essentially a better understanding about where we can do for 
the University. 

And at this particular time, I'd like to have 
somebody who might have some better input as to how I performed 
as the Regents meetings, or at the University, and none other 
than my colleague and my teammate, Regent Connerly was kind 
enough to offer his help in this particular testimony, that I 
would appreciate it if the Chairman would allow some 
presentation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Connerly, did you want to add 
something? 

MR. CONNERLY: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, first of all, I want to thank you for your vote of 
confidence in me last Thursday. And you especially, 
Mr. Chairman. You were very fair. There were some questions 
that I thought you asked with utmost delicacy, and I'm grateful 



to you for that. 

I would not be here on behalf of Lester Lee if I 
thought he was just another good old boy. The University is 
going through some very troubling changes. Since last November, 
and my letter to my colleagues, which said our culture here is 
not right, and we need to make some changes, we've been dividing 
up and choosing sides. Lester Lee is an ally. 

He is not as vocal, and there's something, I think, 
we candidly need to say. It has nothing to do, I think, with 
his ethnicity, but the fact of the matter is that, although he 
is fluent, he is not comfortable, he is not secure, in this 
environment. We talk about the intimidation of being on the 
Board of Regents; this forum is also an intimidating one, and he 
stumbles to some extent in trying to express to you his views . 

That is a situation that many immigrants who are just 
getting into the mainstream have. It's a fact of life, and I 
think we kind of need to understand that. 

I don't think this is about his vote on fees. I hope 
that you're not going to reject him, or make your decision on 
the basis of individual votes, because as long as he is doing 
his duty and exercising due diligence, we're going to disagree. 
He has voted against me more than he's voted with me, and I have 
talked to him about that. 

It takes time for a Regent to feel secure in coming 
forward and standing out when you know that everybody there is 
against you. And if you're a rookie Regent, it takes a little 
bit of courage to be able to step forward. 

Lester, I think, began to make the transition about 



8 

November. He came to me and said, "You're absolutely right. 
You're right with your observations." 

But I don't think that he had mustered the courage 
until like November or December to find out that he was not 
alone in his observations. 

So, I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, he's an ally. 
He's an ally. He is one that wants to move the University in a 
different direction. 

But please understand, if you will, the language 
problem. It is a serious problem. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I've thought about that, and 
have factored it into any decisions that I might make, I hope in 
a fair way. And also understanding that different individuals 
have different approaches to how much confrontation they're will 
to involve themselves in. 

So, I hope I've been fair in understanding his 
background and experiences, and how they might make for a little 
more difficult presentation than, perhaps, you might have, 
Mr. Conner ly, here. 

I wish, frankly, we had more time. This is one of 
the things where it may be more intuition than evidence. And 
it's really hard when you look -- you know, when you vote for or 
against a bill, it's sort of theoretical, and slogans on both 
sides. But when you look at a human being that you have to vote 
yes or no, it's different and it's harder. 

And I have a good deal of respect for the 
difficulties the Rules Committee has had over the years with 
these kinds of decisions. 



these kinds of decisions. 

Thank you . 

MR. CONNERLY: I would say, please understand that he 
has been a very thorough Regent. And while I disagree with him 
on 90 percent of his votes, they were votes of conscience, and I 
understood that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: One of our most thorough Members 
is also an engineer, Senator Leroy Greene. So, I think we're 
familiar with that characteristic, too. 

He's clearly very thorough and works hard. 

MR. CONNERLY: He ' s a good man, though, and he will 
be a good Regent. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MR. CONNERLY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Maddy or anyone else 
present that wishes to make any comment? 

Members? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to state my 
position as it pertains to this appointment. 

About a year ago, I had my office in the district 
picketed by students from Cal Poly campus and the State 
University at San Bernardino because of the increase of tuition 
fees and fees by itself. 

And I indicated to them that the only thing I could 
do was not to support anyone who would favor increasing tuition 
fees that are unreasonable. 

At the same time that the Regents increased the fees, 
they also increased the administrative salaries. You see, it 



10 

students, well, you know, one-third of that fee goes back to 
support students from low-income families. 

So, how can I go back to the students and say I lied 
to you? I'm going to support someone who voted to increase 
student fees, for whatever reason, when I committed myself to 
them that I would not support any one of the Regents that would 
increase the fees of students out of reason? 

If they would have increased the fees of students, at 
the time hold the line on the administrative salaries, it would 
make sense. But when they do both, it looks like they're trying 
to support administrative salaries through increase of fees, and 
the perception is that they're not doing the students any -- 
they're withholding access to the University by doing that to 
the students. 

I have a problem with anyone who voted to increase 
fees, not necessarily Dr. Lee, but any Regent, and also at the 
same time, increase the salaries of the administration. I just 
can't justify that, and I can't go to the students when I said I 
would do otherwise. 

So, that's where I'm coming from. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Just to follow. 

I thought that I understood what you said. However, 
I have a feeling that there's some lack of logic or whatever. 

He did not vote to increase the salaries. 

SENATOR AYALA: That's of the hospital, but not the 
rest of the administrators. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, he voted, as you said, to 



11 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, he voted, as you said, to 
raise fees. And I think that he or any student in our 
educational system with any modicum of intelligence would 
understand why he did that, because it makes good sense. It 
makes sense to you, what you think and so forth, it makes sense 
to me. But that's really not the point. 

My feeling is, you make — if you choose to make a 
statement that, "I'm not going to ever do this any more, ever, 
ever again," that's your business. I think it's stupid to do 
that, Rube, and I can say that to you because I've been around 
you for many, many years, and I never hold back, nor do you. 

But I just don't think that to say that, and then 
been fearful of these students, you know, God help us, you're 
going to be looking over your shoulder all the time. 

SENATOR AYALA: Bill, I'm not fearful of anybody, 
including the Regents. 

I said that raising fees unreasonably. I didn't say 
ever, ever not to raise fees. We're going to have to. The cost 
of education keeps going up, you know. The students have to 
carry the load. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: But at the same time you're 
increasing the fees, you increase the salaries of administrators 
-- I know that he didn't vote to increase salaries of the 
hospital administrators — it doesn't make sense to me. It 
makes sense to you, maybe, but not to me. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: No, it doesn't make any sense to me, 
either. 



12 

But what doesn't make sense to me is to tar him with 
a brush that, perhaps, belongs on somebody else's hide. 

He didn't do what these people didn't want him to do 
as it related to the raise in salaries. 

You know, there's something else, Mr. Chairman, if I 
may. Do I have the floor? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, the Marines have taken the 
beach. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: And as usual, we're fighting amongst 
ourselves . 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, I can say those things to Rube 
because he's a very dear, old friend of mine, and he understands 
that I have feelings just as he does. 

I also have a memory, too, and I have a memory of 
when we were down in the other room where we generally meet, and 
I think it was an appointment to a commission, I think. I don't 
know which it was, but it was not as consequential, all things 
being equal, as this one is. And I can remember a gentleman who 
was obviously Chinese. He was no youngster. 

He came up, and the Chairman said to him at the time, 
"Why are you opposed to Mr. Jones?" 

And he said, in very, very broken English, "We not 
opposed to Mr. Jones. We want to know when Chinese get chance." 
That's exactly what he said; that's the way he said it. 

I had to feel within me, I really feel for this man. 

The gentleman who was up here testifying, he said 
about the old boys. Well, this was something that we picked up 



13 

a lot of old boys, which I have personally been against for a 
long, long time. And I felt sorry for this man, and I thought, 
"This poor soul. He's got a point. When are we going to 
recognize it?" 

Now we come up with a man who, perhaps, as the other 
gentleman said, although I didn't really feel that way about 
him, he may have trouble with an articulation, but he has 
something that is pulsating within him, and that's a heart. And 
he says exactly what he feels. And he's a man that's come up 
the hard way, not from the top; he came up from the absolute 
bottom to become a Ph.D. And he happens to have, 
coincidentally, a heritage which makes him a little different 
from the rest of us. Something that we need; something that 
we ' ve talked about . 

We talk about Pacific Rim, how about those people who 
come from that area or who do business with them, where we can 
use their talents and give them the opportunity to express 
themselves, themselves, as well as others who may have been of 
the same ethnic group. 

I have never talked to this man. I have never seen 
him before today. But I read this letter that he produced, and 
he pretty much articulated those things when he came up to 
testify, and they make sense to me. 

I don't know; I haven't heard from the American 
Federation of Teachers. I haven't been in touch with AFT for, I 
don't know, a decade, I suppose. I am obviously not their "Man 
of the Year. " 

But I just would appreciate it if somebody had come 



14 

by and said, "Bill, this is what we feel," to give me a chance 
to have some dialogue with them. because if it's only a kind of 
an aura that surrounds this thing, and that's my feeling, then 
recognize that that's no reason whatsoever to turn this man 
down. 

And I would implore you, Mr. Chairman and my 
colleagues, to give thought to this. Let's try to put the right 
man in the right job. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator. 

I guess I'll just say this. 

First of all, it's a very close call for me. But I'm 
mindful of the fact that the University routinely tells us how 
immune they are from our legislative and budgetary efforts. 
That because of their unique constitutional status, that we 
can't affect or influence their affairs to the extent we might 
other state agencies. 

So, with that in mind, plus the fact that the 
consequences of today's vote would stretch to the year 2005, Id 
like to, I guess, err on the side of caution. 

And I hope I'm not being unfair to Mr. Lee, because 
I've been very impressed with his history, his presentation, his 
statements . 

I wish there were more evidence, rather than largely 
intuition. The evidence isn't very satisfactory. It's sketchy, 
but the continuing increases in administrative salaries relative 
to faculty and others, at about twice the rate, the student 
fees, open meeting issues, I think the point has been made, and 
correctly, and the Regents need to embrace the diversity of the 



15 

state more than has happened. 

I was quite excited about the fact that a Chinese- 
American would have the first opportunity to serve on the Board, 
or has had that opportunity. 

But my own sense of things is, we need diversity of 
opinion and philosophy as much as diversity of racial 
characteristics. And that the University needs a cultural 
change. I think Regent Connerly has spoken to that. And partly 
I felt comforted by the vote to confirm his nomination, because 
I thought there was a greater sensitivity to that need, to 
change this great institution to make it greater. 

And I didn't find the disposition to be a change 
agent with Dr. Lee. I found a very fine gentleman with business 
skills and knowledge, and perhaps, at a different time or a 
different era in our history, an appointment that would be 
absolutely appropriate. 

I just hope that it will be explained or understood 
in this general context that there's too much deference to high 
level bureaucrats in the UC system. That the Board defers too 
much to the bureaucracy. And that's the fundamental conviction 
that I bring to the vote. 

And the reason I cast a no vote is that I think we 
need to tell the Governor and the University that changes are 
needed, and not just tax increases for students, which has been 
their easy way of not confronting their management and budget 
problems . 

I hope, and I certainly will commit myself to 
involving the Chinese-American community, and other Asian 



16 

community leaders, in competing for a vacancy, if there is one, 
because I do agree with you, Senator Craven, that that diversity 
is important and should be nurtured with the Board of Regents . 

Not an easy vote; close call. A lot of them here 
seem to be 52-48 kinds of judgments, but at least for me, the 
uncertainties and the lengthy tenure contribute to the no side 
of the ledger. 

What's the pleasure of the committee? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I will move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion for confirmation. 

Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala No. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris no. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Fails two to three. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Mr. Chairman, would a motion be in 
order to move that the matter be sent to the Floor without 
recommendation? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess that's a motion that is in 
order. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: So move. 



17 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Does anyone wish to discuss it? 
Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I have a problem with that. It has 
the effect of nullifying the vote, and it would prevail over 
our vote that we just made. 

I don't see how we can send both down. One says we 
recommend no confirmation, which usually ends here. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: It does end here. It doesn't go to 
the Floor. The motion that just failed is nothing would go to 
the Floor. 

I'm suggesting we put the issue before the body, 
because it was a close call, to use the words of the Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: My reaction is that I agree with 
Senator Petris, that we should be able to make whatever decision 
we need to make and live with the result. For that reason, I 
vote no. 

Further discussion? Call the roll on Senator 
Beverly's motion. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala No. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris no. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No. 






SECRETARY WEBB: Fails two to three. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, I think we've concluded 
our business for today. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
12:29 P.M. ] 

--00O00-- 



19 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

jj IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this rz><rO day of February, 1994. 




SVELYN'J. MIZAK 
Shorthand Reporter 



248-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 248-R when ordering. 



L500 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1994 
1:40RM. 



OOCUMFVTS DEPT. 

APR 2 6 1994 

SAN FRANCic^O 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



249-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1994 
1:40 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

JOHN W. BROWN, Member 

State Water Resources Control Board 

GORDON COLOGNE 

MIKE DILLON, Executive Director 

California Association of Sanitation Agencies 

JEAN SAGOUSPE, President 

Central Valley Project Association 

ED SCHNABEL, General Manager 
Sacramento Metropolitan Water Authority 

ROBERT H. TOURTELOT, Member 
California Horse Racing Board 

MARIANNE CHASE 

Thoroughbred Owner and Breeder 

ED FRIENDLY 

Thoroughbred Owners of California 

DOUGLAS McGEOGHEGAN, Member 
Fish and Game Commission 



Ill 



APPEARANCES (Continued) 

SHEL MEYER, President 

NorCal Fishing Guides and Sportsmen Association 

Chairman, Central Valley Fisheries Coalition 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen 

Golden Gate Fishermen's Association 

MARK J. PALMER, Executive Director 
Mountain Lion Foundation 

VIRGINIA HANDLEY 
The Fund for Animals 

HANS HEMANN 
Sierra Club 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 

JOHN W. BROWN, Member 

State Water Resources Control Board 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Hearings on Setting Water Quality 

Standards for San Francisco Bay 6 

Where to Get Additional Water to 

Meet Bay Standards 8 

Board's Discussion of Auburn Dam 10 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Assessment of Water Conservation Efforts 

in California 12 

Current Status of Groundwater Management 13 

Authority of Board to Require Local Districts 

to Adopt Groundwater Basin Management Plans ... 14 

Reason for Board's Decision not to Enforce 

Violations of Water Quality in Delta 15 

Development of Master Plan for Entire State ... 16 

Agricultural Conservation Methods 17 

Board's Work with Agricultural Community 19 

Lining of Canal Ditches 20 

Use of Drip Irrigation 21 

Forecast for Future 2 2 

Witnesses in Support: 

GORDON COLOGNE 2 2 

MIKE DILLON, Executive Director 

California Association of Sanitation Agencies 23 



V 



INDEX (Continued) 

JEAN SAGOUSPE, President 

Central Valley Project Association 2 3 

ED SCHNABEL, General Manager 

Sacramento Metropolitan Water Authoirty 2 4 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Protection of Water Quality of 

San Francisco Bay 25 

Motion to Confirm 2 5 

Committee Action 36 

ROBERT H. TOURTELOT, Member 

California Horse Racing Board 26 

Background and Experience 26 

Questions by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Bachelor of Science Degree 31 

Tenure as Probation Officer 31 

Witnesses in Support: 

MARIANNE CHASE 

Thoroughbred Owner and Breeder 33 

ED FRIENDLY 

Thoroughbred Owners of California 3 3 

Motion to Confirm 35 

Committee Action 37 

DOUGLAS McGEOGHEGAN, Member 

Fish and Game Commission 37 

Background and Experience 3 7 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Use of Dogs in Hunting Black Bears 39 

Five Proposed Changes to Regulations 41 

Separate Subcommittee Formed to Look into 

Bear Problem 4 3 



I 

2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



VI 

INDEX (Continued) 

Public Input at Meetings 4 4 

Nonhunting Groups Represented 44 

Multi-species Approach in Animal Management ... 45 

Mandate of Commission to Consider Welfare 

of Hunted Animals 4 6 

Putting Target Animals in Rolling 

Cages No Longer Allowed 4 6 

Date of Commission's Report on Bear Problem ... 47 

Decision on Delisting the Mojave Ground 

Squirrel 4 7 

Reason Delisting Action Is in Office of 

Administrative Law 4 8 

Nominee's Fishing and Hunting of Ducks 4 9 

Membership in Ducks Unlimited 4 9 

Role in Conservation 5 

Endangered Species and Rice Fields 51 

Encountering Endangered Species in Business 

Might Affect Treatment of other Endangered 

Species 52 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

California Endangered Species Act Versus 

Federal Act 5 3 

Balance on Commission to Protect Wildlife and 

Promote Hunting and Fishing 54 

Questions by SENATOR BEVERLY re: 

Giant Garter Snake 5 5 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Toughest Decision 56 



Vll 



INDEX (Continued) 

Witnesses in Support: 

SHEL MEYER, President 

NorCal Fishing Guides and Sportsmen's Association 

Chairman, Central Valley Fisheries Coalition 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen 

Golden State Fishermen's Association 56 

Witnesses with Concerns; 

MARK PALMER, Executive Director 

Mountain Lion Foundation 57 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Representation at Meetings Relating 

to Black Bear Problem 6 

Attendance at Public Meetinsg 61 

Familiarity with Recommendations of 

Subcommittee 61 

Questions by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Possessive Quality of Rhetoric 61 

VIRGINIA HANDLEY 

The Fund for Animals 62 

HANS HEMANN 

Sierra Club 65 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Philosophy regarding Resource Use Versus 

Resource Conservation 66 

Motion to Confirm 6 7 

Committee Action 6 8 

Termination of Proceedings 68 

Certificate of Reporter 6 9 



1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 __ooOoo-- 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our next item is Mr. John Brown, 

4 State Water Resources . 

5 If you would come forward, sir. Good afternoon. 

6 MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, Mr. Brown, why don't you 

tell us about you, and it looks like you have a prepared comment 
9 that you might want to start with, so tell us about yourself in 
this position. 

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honorable 
12 Members of this Committee. 

My name is John W. Brown. I was appointed by the 

14 Governor on June 8th to serve as a member of the State Water 

15 Resources Control Board. I started that position July 15th. 

I serve the position of civil engineer with 

experience in water resources, water rights, and in agriculture. 

My background, I have 40 years of living in 
California. I went to high school and junior college in the San 
Joaquin Valley, a town called Visalia near Fresno. I went to 
Los Angeles State College on an engineering scholarship and a 



10 

li 



16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



22 football scholarship. 

I worked at Peerless Pump in Southern California, and 

24 



25 
26 
27 
28 



Soults Pump Company in Tulare in the central San Joaquin Valley, 
the Irvine Company, and then I spent 15 years as a consulting 
engineer before accepting this position. 

During my tenure at Peerless Pump in Southern 
California, I was a junior design engineer when I first got out 



of college and worked my way up as the chief of design of 
horizontal chemical process pumps. 

My wife and I and two daughters at that time moved 
back to the San Joaquin Valley, to Visalia and Tulare, and I 
worked for Soults Pump Company for two years and developed a 
vast understanding of sprinkler irrigation systems, and 
developed and patented a machine to put sulfur into solution. 
And that material is used as a herbicide and a fungicide and to 
help neutralize alkaline soils for agricultural production. 

From there, I moved back to Southern California, the 
Irvine Company or the Irvine Ranch, and spent the next 14 years 
of my profession. When I moved to Orange County, there was 
about 80,000 acres total of Irvine in Orange County; 20,000 
acres was under irrigation, and they also had 13,000 acres under 
irrigation in the Imperial Valley. In addition, they had a 
large ranch in Montana which responsibilities would sometimes 
take me to. 

During the tenure with the Irvine Company, I was 
responsible for their engineering operations, their water 
supply, drainage, flood control, construction, and maintenance. 
We had seven earth-filled dams, 32 deep well turbine pumps, and 
we delivered about 30,000 acre feet of water a year to irrigate 
the 20,000 acres of land. We installed some of the first drip 
irrigation for -- within the State of California back in the 
mid-1960s to irrigate citrus and such. 

We also developed a reclamation and re-use program in 
the early days where we treated municipal and industrial waste 
water and conveyed it inland after advanced treatment for the 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



irrigation of crops, and parks, and green belts, and 
landscaping. 

I was able to convince the Irvine Company in later 
years that, since they were developing into a residential 
commercial area, and my interest was mainly in water resources, 
that the time was fast approaching which we could more cost 
effectively contract out the engineering services than we could 
by staffing for it. And if I could take my staff and go with a 
well established civil engineering firm in the area, that we 
could contract back and do the work on a contract basis as 
opposed to staffing for it. 

After about two years of discussing this with Irvine, 
they agreed to let me do that. So, I took the engineering staff 
from Irvine, and we moved over to Boyle Engineering, in the same 
area, and opened up a new division for Boyle. We contracted 
back the first year and did the work on a contract basis as 
before, and we saved the Irvine Company about $40,000-50,000 the 
first year. But more importantly, it enabled my staff and I to 
be in an area of growth, and one of the first assignments we 
took the first year was the master planning, the development, of 
12,000 acres of citrus in Egypt near the Espaya Canal, with all 
the infrastructure associated with it. 

While working with the Boyle Engineering for the next 
almost 14 years, one of the major things that we did was to 
inventory the reclamation programs within the State of 
California, the advantages and disadvantages, and it was done 
for the State Water Resources Control Board at that time, as a 
matter of fact. The result was a technical report to where we 



could take data that was being developed in the late '60s and 
early '70s and convey it from one part of the state to the 
other, that the treatment plant operators would have this 
information and be able to understand what was happening in 
other parts of the state. 

In addition to the technical data for those, we 
developed, maybe more importantly, a brochure for the 
agricultural community to use treated municipal and industrial 
waste water for irrigation purposes . And the idea was to get 
the farming community interested in conserving and reclaiming 
water as well as the engineer and water suppliers. And that for 
a long time was a benchmark for reclamation within the state. 

In 1984, my wife and I moved to Sacramento, and we 
opened a new office for Boyle up here. We didn't have a job, or 
a place to stay, so we started out fairly cold. But we spent 
the last 10 years up here and have enjoyed it immensely. 

Since moving to Sacramento, we've worked on 
assignments for the Bureau of Reclamation here, flood control 
projects, drainage, soil conservation, and land reclamation, 
and we've done some three-dimensional groundwater modeling. 
Many of these projects, I was either the principal in charge or 
the project manager. We did a water master plan for the Placer 
County Water Agency, and more importantly recently here, we've 
completed one, a water conservation master plan for the Oakdale 
Irrigation District, and have worked up in Colusa. 

The office over the last ten years has grown to 4 or 
50 people and established a good base for an additional 
engineering firm in this area. 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I had the opportunity a couple years ago to go to 
work for Camp Dresser & McKee, which is a large, well respected 

3 civil engineering firm, starting operations in Sacramento. I 

4 was responsible for the Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley 
operations. In that short tenure before coming here, we did a 
water conservation and environmental enhancement project for the 
City of Visalia, which I think you'll hear more about by one of 
the ladies here today. And we also did the Central Valley 
Improvement Act, the plan of action study for the Bureau of 
Reclamation. And these endeavors have kept us, myself, very 
current with some of the happenings and the dynamics of water 
resources within the State of California here. 

My personal speciality is in water reclamation, 
irrigation, water resource master planning, and I have over the 
years have probably written more than 30 papers on water 
conservation, reclamation, and re-use. 

I'm a registered civil engineer within the State of 
California. I'm a registered agricultural engineer within the 
state. I served for 15 years on the Orange County Resource 
Conservation District Board of Directors, working with 
conserving soil and helping in flood control and drainage 
issues. I served eight years with the Council of California 
Growers on the Board of Governors. 

I'm a graduate of the California Agricultural 
Leadership Program, Class V here within the state. Past 
President of the Tustin Rotary Club, and I'm currently a member 
of the East Sacramento Rotary Club. 

I have lived in the San Joaquin Valley a good part of 



my life, in Southern California for almost 20 years, and the 
last 10 years in Northern California. I know this state. I 
know it very well. I know the water resources and many of the 

4 concerns that we share. 

5 I've been married for 33 years. I have three 

6 daughters and three grandsons. And I'm honored to be before 
this Committee. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much, sir. 

It's quite an impressive resume and work history, and 
I appreciate the fact that you were able to continue to explain 
all of that to us while we read all these documents that they 
give us. We could listen and read at the same time. Thank you. 

Questions from Members of the Committee? Senator 
Ayala . 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Brown, the Racanelli decision was 
about, what, ten years ago now, ten or twelve years ago, 
indicating that the Board must set standards in the Bay. We 
already have standards in the Delta. 

You're having public hearings now to determine the 
standards for the Bay, quality standards. How far along are you 
with those hearings, and when do you think the Board will come 
forth with some standards? 

And once they set the standards, where will the 
additional water come from to meet those standards? 

MR. BROWN: The problems within the Bay, and indeed, 
many of the problems throughout California, I believe, stem 
from the fact that we have more demands on this water resource 
than what we have supply. 



10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Part of the solution to the concern in the Delta, 
Senator Ayala, is to try and to develop a program to where we 
can, in a sense, balance out the demands with the supplies. And 
the major problem that we're all having to address in this state 
is the existing shortfall that we're currently experiencing of 
about two million acre feet a year, which is being made up by 
mining the groundwater basin for the most part in the Central 
San Joaquin Valley on the east side, but that shortfall is 
projected to grow to four, to five, to maybe six million acre 
feet by the year 2010. 

That's the real answer to that question, is how can 
we get enough water to meet the demands within the state for the 
increasing environmental needs, and the agricultural needs, and 
the growing population within the state. 

We will start our evidentiary hearing on the 
Bay-Delta in April. And through the Porter-Cologne Act, we're 
required to have an open hearing where responsible and 
interested entities can come and testify on behalf of what needs 
and should be done, and what standards should be set in that 
Bay, and that will begin in April. 

SENATOR AYALA: That's not the first hearing, 
however, in April. Haven't you had some along the way already 
in terms of public hearings, input from the public? 

MR. BROWN: On 1630, yes, we did, but right now, we 
-- our triennial review is coming due, and that begins in April, 
sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: Obviously, the Bay will need 
additional fresh water into the Bay to meet those standards . 



I 



8 



I'm not sure where this water's going to come from, because all 



the water in California's committed already. We'll have to 



7 



10 

11 
12 

13 
14 
15 
16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



develop a new source to meet those standards. Otherwise, those 
who are using it today will lose. 
5 According to Racanelli, anyone who diverts water 

before it reaches the Delta will be assessed accordingly. That 
means the Northern farmers, and the Central Valley Project, the 
State Water Project, everybody's going to give up some, 
including Hetch Hetchy, which San Francisco doesn't think 
applies to them, however. But I think it does, according to the 
courts . 

So, where are we going to get additional water to not 
only meet the Delta higher standards, which has also been 
requested, but the Bay as well? 

MR. BROWN: There's some criteria that I believe 
strongly that we should set in establishing whatever we do in 
water resources within this state. 

And the basic criteria is that after we decide what 
all entities need, whether it's agriculture, the environment, 
and the domestic requirement, is that at least we as water users 
of today will not use more water than what we are entitled to. 
That we will somehow or another develop a program to where we 
will cease mining water from groundwater basins, and, in a 
sense, pay our own way in water resources. 

That, I think, we can agree to, regardless which use 
-- water use faction you come from: the environmental 
community, or the agricultural community. It's not our intent, 
it certainly is not mine, to be using my children's water. 



So, if we can establish an agreement between 
ourselves that at least in water resources, we will pay our own 
way, regardless what program we accept, and if we agree to pay 
our own way, and we recognize there's a shortfall, then we have 
two options, to answer your question. 

The two options, to answer Senator Ayala's question, 
is that we either develop new water supplies with new projects, 
or we reduce our demand if we're going to pay our own way. 
That's the only two opions there are, or a combination of those 
two. 

And if we look at reducing or increasing the 
supplies, we have the Auburn Dam, the Cottonwood Creek 
Reservoir, Los Banos Grande Dam, Kellog Reservoir, Kern County 
Groundwater Bank, and all the facilities that we've been working 
on ~ Auburn Dam for 26-27 years, and we haven't built it. We 
haven't built a new project in this state since 1982 of any 
magnitude. 

So, if we look at trying to be able to pay our own 
way with new projects, it's going to be a difficult task to do. 
If we added up the increment in yield of all of these projects 
under consideration right now, the total increment in yield is 
about 1.2 million acre feet. And the state's going to be 
looking for 5, 6, 7 million acre feet to pay our own way. 

Then we can start to focus on, maybe if new projects 
can't resolve the problem within the state, maybe reducing our 
demand through conservation, reclamation, water marketing, water 
transfers, consumptive use, tail water recovery, everything from 
bricks in toilets to swimming pool covers . There ' s a hundred 



10 

options that we could talk about; some make sense, and of 
course, some don't. 

And I think part of our charge would be, Senator, to 
find out which one of those options make the most sense. 

SENATOR AYALA: Has the Board officially or 
unofficially discussed Auburn Dam, construction thereof? 

MR. BROWN: Not with me, Senator, and not since I've 
been on board. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MR. BROWN: But the question is, Auburn Dam, I think 
the real question is: what are the best options to pay our own 
way? And if Auburn Dam is one of the better options to do this, 
then I'm for Auburn Dam. If it's not, then we shouldn't be for 
Auburn Dam. 

But I think when we go through the analysis, it's 
hard to build anything in the State of California today without 
some negative opposition or some entity getting hurt. But 
hopefully, the negative part of any of these projects, whether 
they're new projects or conservation projects, will be much less 
than our doing doing and continuing to mine. That we can't do. 

SENATOR AYALA: It seems to me we're going to have to 
develop a new source of water before we can meet those 
standards, otherwise, everybody in the state is going to lose. 
Up and down the state there'll be a shortage of water all over. 

Auburn Dam, as I propose it, would provide a 2 
million acre foot of, you know, dam that would provide the first 
increment of that going to the Bay to meet those standards 
without losing water for any other use. In other words, we 



7 



10 



11 

wouldn't gain anywhere, but we would solidify that which we 
have, and still take the standards in the Bay into consideration 
as provided by you folks . 

Thank you. 
5 MR. BROWN: Yes, Senator. 

I think we have to look and reflect on all of our 
options, and certainly Auburn Dam is a major consideration. But 
we do need to pay our own way and develop our program within 
this state to where we quit using water from future generations. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 
11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I come from a brick in the toilet 
district. We have done a very good job through the East Bay MUD 
District in educating the users about the importance of 
conservation. And we had the big drought, you're probably aware 
of this, some pretty severe measures were adopted. Most of 
them were voluntary, and they were going to be followed by 
mandatory, but the voluntary program worked out so well that it 
wasn't necessary to go to the harsh methods. 

For years afterward, these habits continued. I guess 
we're creeping back up slowly, but it's been very impressive. 

So, I'm interested in conservation. At one time, 
Senator Ayala had a major water bill, which covered a lot of 
areas, which had 18 amendments offered on the Floor, every one 
of which was defeated. Then the 19th amendment was mine, 
requiring a goal of 2 million acre feet of conservation to be 
established by the Board and reached by a certain year. But I 
don't remember if that bill ever passed; my recollection is, it 



13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



12 

probably didn't. 

So, my first question is, what is your assessment of 
the degree of water conservation generally throughout the state 
at the present time? You mentioned we ought to be doing more. 
Just how well are we doing? What kind of a grade do you give 
us, ad how much more do you feel, if any, should be done? 

MR. BROWN: There's several kinds of conservation, 
Senator. 

What your constituency has been doing in your area is 
remarkable. I think you were down to 160 gallons per day per 
capita, as I recall. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, that's right. 

MR. BROWN: And that's a tremendous help. 

The agricultural community in this state uses about 
80-85 percent of the water within this state, and the domestic 
water use community and incidental use uses the other 15 
percent . 

There are some opportunities with domestic water use 
conservation, like your area has exhibited, and certainly the 
Southern California area whence I come from are doing similar 
kinds of activities, and their water use per capita has dropped 
considerably. 

There's other water conservation programs of taking 
treated municipal and industrial waste water for re-use, and I 
think we have a lot of opportunity to do that in this state. We 
have a program that ' s pending before our Board right now where 
the Salinas Valley area, the Monterey area, is starting to go 
into a full reclamation program, and to help an area over there 



4 



7 



10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



13 

that has sea water intrusion within one mile of downtown 

2 Salinas. 

3 I think last year, we only used about 500,000 acre 
feet of treated municipal and industrial waste water within the 
whole State of California. So, I think that there's some real 
opportunities in this kind of reclamation program. Indeed, the 
City of San Francisco is contemplating a program now, or 
studying one, to take all of the treated municipal and 
industrial waste water from the whole Bay Area and bring it over 
to the California Delta-Mendota Canal with the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and possibly put it in and use it for irrigation in 
lieu of fresh water with the Bureau of Reclamation and the 
Central Valley Project. 

Those are the kinds of ideas where I think we ' re 
going to have to look at very hard. I don't know whether they 
make good economic sense or not, but certainly they make sense 
as far as being good in principle and concept. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Groundwater management is kind of 
related to that, too; isn't it? 

MR. BROWN: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We've had a tough time getting the 
help from the farmers traditionally. For years, we've had 
efforts to impose some kind of a standard requirement for 
groundwater, and it's always been defeated because of their 
opposition. We did have a statute passed in 1982 that started 
us in that direction. 

What is the current status of groundwater management? 
Are we doing any good there? 



14 

MR. BROWN: The State Legislature, I'm sure, as this 
honorable Committee knows, has passed some excellent legislation 
recently to help provide a vehicle for water districts and local 
entities to provide leadership in groundwater management. 

I believe that — or, at least my philosophy is, as 
long as we can, and if we have local entities willing to exhibit 
groundwater management and control to take proper care of their 
basin, and to make sure we don't have salt water intrusion, or 
groundwater basin degradation, and if we can have those controls 
on a localized basis, I favor that. 

If, for whatever reason, the local communities are 
not able to exercise that control, then we have the State Water 
Resources Control Board to fall back on to make sure that it is 
maintained. 

And we're experiencing similar concerns right now in 
the Salinas groundwater basin. But we have asked the local 
entities to move forward quickly to help identify and resolve 
these problems over there, and I'm pleased to say they're doing 
that. 

But groundwater basin management, groundwater basin 
water quality, is one of the top three concerns within the State 
of California. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you have the authority to require 
the local districts to adopt a plan if they either are remiss 
in doing it or if they outright refuse? 

MR. BROWN: If a basin is in threat of being degraded 
for water quality, yes, we have that authority. And we can 
assign a water master, and then, through the quasi- judicial 



15 

proceeding, allocate water supplies within the basin. But it 
has to be threatened before we become involved. 

3 SENATOR PETRIS: And who determines if it's 

4 threatened? 

5 MR. BROWN: Our State Board. 

6 SENATOR PETRIS: Your State Board does? 

MR. BROWN: Yes. 
SENATOR PETRIS: I have a question on enforcement of 

water quality standards. There has been a combination of 
agencies which set down certain minimum water quality standards. 
After it was learned that there' d been a lot of violations, in 
fact, just within the last couple of years, I understand that on 
the Delta, water quality requirements are 182 days during the 
water years '92 and '92, they had a total of 289 separate site 
violations on quality. And yet, in June of last year, the Board 
informed the Project operators that there wouldn't be any 
enforcement, which is something I don't understand. 

Can you enlighten me on that? This was probably all 
brewing before you went on the Board, but I would like, for 
information, to know what the justification is for refusing to 
enforce the water quality standards in the Delta. 

MR. BROWN: Senator, I do not know what went into 
that decision. 

And you're right. I did start on July 15th, so that 
decision was made before I came on board, and I really don't 
know what went into the Board's mind or the reasoning for doing 
that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It has to do with the federal 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



16 

statute and with our own Porter-Cologne statute, and so forth. 

I'm concerned, since I also live in an area where my 
constituents are directly affected by what goes on in the Delta, 
and how much water we get. And we appreciate Senator Ayala's 
efforts to protect the Delta and the amount of water exported, 
and so forth. 

We're also interested in water quality, so I would 
appreciate it if you would look into that and find out why they 
decided, in spite of these federal and state statutes, and in 
spite of the appropriate board's recommendations, this hasn't 
been done. It's kind of disturbing. 

Now, you say we made a good start in regulation of 
groundwater, but I understand we don't have a plan, overall 
master plan, for the whole state in place, and we're one of only 
two states in the drought-stricken west, which, you know, 
traditionally we are told we live on the edge of a desert, and 
we feel the impacts all the time. And yet, we don't have a 
groundwater management plan. 

Would you say we're far enough along now as a result 
of recent actions by the Legislature to develop such a plan? 

MR. BROWN: We have the vehicle. We have the 
legislation and certainly the encouragement from the Legislature 
to do this . 

Local districts are becoming more and more concerned 
because, as the water shortfalls continue to grow throughout the 
State of California, whether it's in Salinas, or in the San 
Joaquin Valley, or your area, or in others, local entities are 
becoming more concerned and are picking up the ball to form 



17 

their own groundwater management program, which is what should 
happen in this state. 

I think that the state agencies can play a role in 
helping to coordinate and pull these plans together, not only 
the groundwater, but with surface water, too. Surface water is 
the key, I think. If we have enough surface water to meet the 
demands, then we won't have to be mining groundwater basins. 
And I believe that the state has a role to help coordinate and 
develop a master plan within the state to balance out supplies 
with demands , and see to it that we stop mining the groundwater 
basins . 

I'm not sure what role our Board will play in that. 
I know we have a responsibility, and we have the authority, and 
we will surely be involved, though. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, you have now what you didn't 
have before, which is — 

MR. BROWN: That's right, Senator. We have the need, 
we have the legislation, and we have the authority. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So when do we get the action? 

MR. BROWN: As soon as I get out of here. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: May he be excused now, Mr. Chairman? 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Be careful. We're getting close 
to a court decision. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Let's take all our farm areas in the 
state, do we have any reports on the percentage of water that 
they are allocated and use which is being saved in some 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



18 

conservation? How are they doing? 

MR. BROWN: In certain areas of the state, they're 
doing excellent. 

The west side, as an example, which I'm very familiar 
with, in the San Joaquin Valley, they're doing excellent because 
they have to. They've been hit rather severely with the Central 
Valley Improvement Act, the Miller-Bradley bill, which dedicated 
a substantial quantity of water, maybe as much as 1.5 million 
acre feet, out of the Central Valley Project for required and 
increasing environmental needs. This, along with the drought 
that we've had for years, and the declining water supplies, has 
forced many of the growers on the west side to come out with 
improved irrigation methods, higher value cropping patterns. 
And even with that, many of them have had a difficult time, and 
some of my friends that I've worked with for years, I know, have 
gone bankrupt because it's hard to irrigate 100 percent land 
when you only have 50 percent water. 

The Imperial Valley, I was down there last week, and 
I was extremely impressed with what they have done over the last 
six, seven years with their new management. They have come up 
with conservation methods of lining the canals and tail water 
recovery, and are taking those quantities of water conserved, 
and are diverting them at Parker through existing facilities 
into Southern California for domestic use. 

The drip irrigation, the higher value crops, this 
state produces $18 billion a year in agricultural economy. We 
have just under 10 million irrigated acres within the state. 
And all in all, the agricultural community is a very efficient 



19 



4 



7 



10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 



user of water. 

2 But there are areas within the ag. community, as well 

as within the M and I water users communities, that we can 
conserve. There are areas where we have marginal crops on 
marginal lands with low payment capacity on these crops where 
there's some opportunities to take water off these lands through 
water monitoring and transfers and divert them for higher value 
water needs, either in agriculture or elsewhere. 

9 But it will take a combination of these things, not 

only in the agricultural community, but the domestic water users 
community, if we stand a chance of generating enough water saved 
and conserved, and with new projects, to pay our own way in this 
state. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is the Board pretty much in touch 
with the agricultural community on these things? Do you meet 
with them, or do you put out bulletins? How do you go about 
working with them? 

MR. BROWN: I've spent 30 years in this state working 



19 in water resources mainly in the agricultural community, and I 

know it very well. That's my assignment and part of my duties 
21 



22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



while I serve on this Board. 

So, I'm able to convey my knowledge to the other 
Board members, but we have — our other Board members are also 
knowledgeable in these areas, and I think collectively, we have 
a good team to evaluate the suitability of some of these options 
to conserve, save, or reclaim water. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How does the Board do its work? Do 
you go through local water districts, agriculture irrigation 



20 

districts, and so forth? 

MR. BROWN: Yes. I've been to several water 
districts, and irrigation districts, and domestic water user 
communities since I've been on this Board, numerous ones. 

I believe you do have to get out to see what's 
happening and take a look in the field. The Imperial Valley was 
an excellent example. The last time I was in the Imperial 
Valley was ten years ago, and I was not impressed with what was 
being done then. But as I walked away last week and saw what 
they're doing down there to save, and take the water that's 
conserved and divert it through existing facilities into 
Southern California is remarkable. I'm very pleased with that. 

There's other examples in the San Joaquin Valley, 
because of the salt problem, that the growers have on the west 
side particularly, that they have to be extremely efficient, 
otherwise, they build up an accumulation of salt in the root 
zone, and then they're dead. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We've seen that more than once. 

MR. BROWN: That's probably the number three problem 
within the state. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You mentioned lining of the ditches. 
What are they lining it with? 

MR. BROWN: Concrete, slip form concrete. And these 
are big ditches . 

The thing with the Imperial Valley, if water 
percolates down past the invert of the ditch, it percolates into 
a saline groundwater basin and it's lost. If water percolates 
in the San Joaquin Valley down past the root zone due to over 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



21 

irrigation, well, it's picked up by a groundwater basin that's 
in decline; it's salvaged. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Does drip irrigation help on that as 
well as more economic use? 

MR. BROWN: Drip irrigation — with the drip 
irrigation, we can have an irrigation efficiency around 90 
percent, which means that nine out of ten gallons of water that 
you use goes towards the growing of that crop. 

When you get into furrow and flood drip — flood 
irrigation, you're down usually into 50-60 percent efficient. 
Sprinklers will bring you up close to 70 or 75 percent. 

So, any time that we can encourage or provide an 
incentive for a grower to go from one type of irrigation to the 
other, that's water that's saved. 

One of the things which the water marketing and 
transfers might enable us to do is, now, for the first time, a 
grower who goes in and conserves water has the opportunity to 
market that water, where before the Central Valley Improvement 
Act, if you saved 10 percent of your water and you're a Bureau 
contractor, that water went back to the Bureau. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, no incentive there. 

MR. BROWN: There's no incentive. Now, with this 
bill, there's some things that really hit agriculture pretty 
hard, but one of the things that really helped agriculture was 
that it provides an incentive for them to save water. And if 
they save water, then that water could be marketed to others. 
And with the money received from marketing, they can consider 
going into a higher value crop that enables the drip irrigation 



4 



22 

and the sprinkler systems. 

But you can't drip irrigate barley or alfalfa, but 
you can row crops and field crops, but it takes a different type 
of farming capability, financially and otherwise, to go from 
marginal crops on marginal lands to high value crops . 
6 But with some financial incentives to do these 

things, it can help the growers, where in the past they didn't 
have that help. 

9 SENATOR PETRIS: So, what is your forecast on these 

things in the future? Do you think we're going to do better and 
better? 

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir, I surely do. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I hope you nudge them while you're 



10 

11 

12 
13 

14 



18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



26 
27 
28 



there. 



15 MR. BROWN: I will. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I should say continue to nudge them 
17 



I know you've been doing it. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you, Senator Petris . Any 
other Member? 

Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak 
on this subject, either pro or con? Yes, sir, please come 



23 forward. 

MR. COLOGNE: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 

25 



I'll only take one minute. 

I've known John for a number of years. 

I'm Gordon Cologne, author of that famous Porter- 
Cologne Act, or infamous Porter-Cologne Act that John's going to 



23 

have to enforce. 

And I know of no other person better informed, more 
intelligent on the subject, and has more integrity than John. I 
would certainly urge his appointment. 

5 SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. 

6 MR. DILLON: Mr. Chairman and Members, Mike Dillon, 
Executive Director and lobbyist for the California Association 
of Sanitation Agencies. 



9 You already heard much about Mr. Brown's background. 

From our standpoint, water reclamation and the new issues 
emerging in the area of watershed management, and abandoned mine 
drainage, and so forth, are really becoming critical in terms of 
the need to solve them. 

We think with Mr. Brown's background, he's in an 
excellent position to make the Board stronger and to deal with 
all of the problems confronting it, so we support his 



17 confirmation. 



18 
19 
20 
21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Thank you. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. 

Next, please. 

MR. SAGOUSPE: Mr. Chairman, honorable Members of the 
Senate Rules Committee, my name is Jean Sagouspe. I'm a farmer 
from Los Banos . I'm also the President of the Central Valley 
Project Association, which represents 80 member districts, 
federal contractors, both urban and agricultural users in the 
state. 

I'd like to just take a couple minutes to briefly say 
that I've known John Brown for about 15 years, and the Governor 



24 

has made an excellent choice in appointing him to this position 

2 In these times of declining water resources in 

3 agriculture, I think it's extremely important that our industry 

4 have representation on this Board; representation that 
understands the resulting impacts, and who can fairly represent 

6 our industry, along with other competing interests for the water 
resources in the state. 

It's extremely important to have strong, 
knowledgeable members on the Board, members who can provide the 
leadership necessary to protect and manage our most important 
life-giving resource. 

Therefore, I strongly support that you recommend -- 
and I recommend that you nominate John Brown for this position. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. 

Yes, sir. 

MR. SCHNABEL: Mr. Chairman, honorable Members, I'm 

18 Ed Schnabel, General Manager of the Sacramento Metropolitan 

Water Authority. 
20 



10 
11 

12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



I ' ve known John for many years , and I ' m here today 
speaking from a municipal water user's point of view. I've 
worked with him on master planning, on water treatment plant 
design, reservoirs, and raw water supply systems. He has shown 
a lot of diversification, ability, and what some of us call 
imagineering, rather than engineering, in putting together 
projects. He's also been very creative with water conservation 
recommendations and applications. 

I know him as a man of great ability, of honesty and 



25 



3 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 



18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



integrity. I would hope that you would recommend him for 
appointment to the Board. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. 

Anyone else? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more 



question? 



SENATOR CRAVEN: Yes, Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I forgot all about San Francisco 



Bay. 



The question is, do you feel any special actions are 
necessary at this time to protect the water quality of San 
Francisco Bay, or are we doing okay the way it's going? 

MR. BROWN: It is obvious that we are not doing okay, 
Senator. 
5 The program that we develop to protect the Bay, and 

how it affects the other water users within the state, needs our 
very best judgment. The process that we will be venturing upon 
in the triennial review will take those considerations in hand. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It sounds like you're going to have 
some recommendations . 

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's fine, thanks. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I will move the nomination or 
appointment of Mr. Brown to the Water Resources Control Board. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Senator Ayala moves. 

Questions of the Members? There being none, call the 
roll, please. 



26 



4 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 
SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

3 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

5 SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

6 SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



7 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 



20 
21 



24 
25 
26 

27 
28 



Lockyer . 



SECRETARY WEBB: Four to zero. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: We will hold the roll open. The 
President Pro Tern had to step out for a while, but he'll be back 
shortly and we'll include him in the vote. 

Congratulations . 

MR. BROWN: Thank you, gentlemen, very much. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Next we've been asked to take Mr. 
Tourtelot, Member of the California Horse Racing Board, by our 
19 Chairman, and we will do that now. 

We will ask you, as we ask all of the nominees, to 
tell us briefly why you feel qualified for the position to which 

22 you have been nominated. 

23 MR. TOURTELOT: Thank you, Senator Craven, Mr. 
Chairman, and Senator Ayala, Senator Beverly, Senator Petris. 

I am Robert Tourtelot, and I appear before you today 
to seek confirmation from the Senate of my appointment to the 
California Horse Racing Board. 

I'd like to introduce my wife, Susan. 



27 



10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



SENATOR CRAVEN: Nice to have you with us. 

MR. TOURTELOT: I think it's an understatement for me 

3 to say I'm really excited to be here today. 

4 A recent study by the Felmeyer Research Associates 

5 shows that 1992, the horse industry in California was 

6 responsible for 28,200 full-time jobs. Expenditures in the 
state totaled $1.65 billion, and review of the horse racing 
impact on jobs and revenue and taxes showed that the racing 
industry generated an estimated $246.4 million. It is, indeed, 
an economically very important industry to our state, and I'm 
proud to be a part of it. 

If I may be permitted, let me briefly give you some 
background information on myself. 

I'm a graduate of Redondo Beach High School, having 
grown up on the Pales Verdes peninsula. My father, Fred 
Tourtelot, was the second mayor of the City of Rolling Hills. I 
graduated from the University of Santa Clara with a major in 
accounting. 

Following college, I spent two years in the United 
States Navy, being honorably discharged in 1959. From 1959 to 
1961, I was a probation officer with the Los Angeles County 
Probation Department. 

I entered law school in 1961, and I graduated from 
Hastings College of the Law in 1964. At Hastings, I was issue 
editor of the Law Journal, president of the first year class, 
member of the Thurston Honor Society as well as a member of the 
Order of the Coif. 

Following graduation from law school, I became an 



28 



l 



associate with the Los Angeles law firm of O'Melveny and Myers 



After six years, I left O'Melveny and Myers; went to open my own 



9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



law firm. For the past twenty years, I've specialized in trial 
work as a plaintiff's trial attorney. 

5 I'm an active member of the Association of Trial 

6 Lawyers of America. I'm the First Vice Chair of the Small 
Office Practice Section for the ATLA. I'm a member of the 
California Trial Lawyers Association also. As such, I am and I 
always have been an ardent supporter of consumers ■ rights and an 
active opponent of the so-called tort reform efforts. 

Some of my professional involvement since law school, 
I've been a member of the Attorney General's Voluntary Advisory 
Council under Evelle Younger. I am presently a member of the 
Board of Director of DARE America. I have been for four years. 
I'm very active with the DARE program. As you know, the DARE 
program is in every state now in the United States, and we're in 
some 13 countries. It's growing every day. 

I'm a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Judicial 
Evaluation Committee, a member of the Judicial Selection Board 
for Los Angeles County. I am presently a member of the 
Executive Committee of the Crime Prevention Council of the Los 
Angeles Police Department. I'm also a specialist reserve 
officer with the — police officer with the Los Angeles Police 
Department . 

I'm dedicated to using what abilities I have to help 
make this economically strong industry of horse racing prosper 
and grow, with a view towards everyone becoming a winner: the 
state, the fans, the horsemen, and the track owners. 



29 



4 



I thank you very much for allowing me to appear 

2 before you today. 

3 I do have an answer to the question, Senator Craven, 
that you asked as to why I believed I was qualified to serve on 

5 the Board. 

6 I think that can be summarized in four words, and 
I'll get into each one of them. The four words are: desire, 
ability, integrity, and independence. I believe that a person 
serving on the California Horse Racing Board should have a 
desire to educate themselves to — with respect to the issues 
that are facing the Board, whether they be equine medication, 
track safety, licensing, simulcasting, satellite wagering, or 



7 



10 
11 
12 



13 whatever 

I believe that during my brief six months on the 

15 



16 

17 



21 
22 



26 

27 
28 



Board, that I've exhibited an ability to grasp the issues 
quickly, to study, to spend the time with respect to those 
issues. As a trial lawyer, I'm faced with cases in geology, and 



18 by the time the trial's over, I probably know as much about 
geology as the experts that I've hired. That's typical of a 

20 



trial attorney, whether it be geothermal energy or a product 
liability case. I think the same ability to grasp those issues 
is something I can bring and have brought to the Horse Racing 



23 Board. 

Second, I said that I think the individual should 



have an ability to be able to educate themselves and to grasp 
the issues and understand those, and to make fair and informed 
decisions on the issues that come before the Board. And I 
believe I have that ability. 



30 

Third, I believe that the individual who serves on 
the Board should have integrity, above all, should have 
integrity. It's a big industry. There's a lot of money 
involved, and every member of the Board must have impeccable 
credentials with respect to integrity. 

I believe my record as a trial lawyer for 29 years, 
my being on the Board of DARE, Board of Directors of DARE 
America, my being a reserve police officer demonstrates my 
integrity. 

And finally, Board members should have independence. 
I don't believe a Board member should be tied to any aspect of 
the industry, whether it be to the race tracks, or to the 
horsemen, or to suppliers, or to whatever. I think that you 
need an independent person on the Board that will approach each 
of the issues fairly, and honestly, and in good faith. 

I believe that I have all of those four attributes. 
That's my brief summary as to why I believe I'm qualified to 
serve on the Board. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Fine, very well. 

Senator Petris has the first questions. 

SENATOR PETRIS: In your learning about geology in 
trial work, did you encounter any groundwater management 
problems? 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: This is the wrong nominee; sorry. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, if he was with O'Melveny and 
Myers, I think he's had more than a little bit of exposure to 
government somewhere along the line. 



31 

MR. TOURTELOT: Well, we've had some very successful 
graduates from O'Melveny and Myers to go into government. One I 
saw on television last night was Secretary of State Christopher, 
Warren Christopher, who actually offered me the job when I was 
in law school . 

SENATOR CRAVEN: You know, I'm looking at the 
material that we have. It's very brief, somewhat sketchy. 

But you have, according to this, in 1956, a Bachelor 
of Science Degree with the letter "C" in accounting at the 
University of Santa Clara. 

What does the "C" stand for? 

MR. TOURTELOT: The "C" stands for commerce. 
Everybody in the Business College would get a degree, a Bachelor 
of Science in Commerce, then it would be economics or 
accounting. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That's very interesting. 

MR. TOURTELOT: I'm glad you didn't ask me why I 
picked accounting. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I know why I wouldn't do it again 
myself. I can sympathize with you there. 

I wanted to ask you one other thing. You mentioned, 
I believe, that you were a probation officer. 

MR. TOURTELOT: A probation officer for Los Angeles 
County. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Did you do that right out of school? 

MR. TOURTELOT: I did that after the service. After 
college, I went into the service for two years, and then 
actually I was going to try to go to Southwestern Law School and 



32 

work in the Probation Department, but I had to work three days 
solid in the camps, and I never could figure out how I could get 
all the classes, so I ended up going to Hastings. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: You may wonder why I'm asking these 
questions, which are somewhat irrelevant, I guess, to the job, 
but in looking at this, I have trouble getting everything in the 
right and appropriate order. I looked at your date of birth, 
and I see how different it is from my own, and yet the college 
years and so forth, they don't gee up. 

We're not going to hold that against you. It's just 
a matter of interest to me. I'll show it to you after it's all 
over. 

MR. TOURTELOT: I can go through them, if you're 
interested. 

I graduated from Santa Clara in 1956. I went to work 
for United Airlines for one year. In 1957, I went in the Navy; 
I came out in 1959, and I went to work for the County Probation 
Department for about a year and a half. Then I went to Hastings 
Law School in 1961; I graduated in 1964 and went with O'Melveny 
and Myers in June of 1964. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, now I have another thought. 

What is your date of birth? 

MR. TOURTELOT: December 27th, 1934. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That's not correct here; the year 
is, but I'm still going to talk to you. 

We have somebody who has another question other than 
those that we've just discussed? Senator Ayala, none. Senator 
Beverly. 



33 

SENATOR BEVERLY: No questions. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I'll ask if anyone in the audience 
wishes to offer any comment, pro or con, on the nominee? Here's 
a lady who is coming forward. 

MS. CHASE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. 
My name is Marianne Chase. 

I'm a thoroughbred owner and breeder in California, 
and have been such for 20 years. And both my husband and myself 
have been involved with both and are in great support of 
Mr. Tourtelot. We've watched him perform at the Horse Racing 
Board's meeting and find that his judgment on the issues has 
been right on and has been excellent. 

I respect the fact also that Mr. Tourtelot is an 
attorney, and I think we need that in this organization. I 
witnessed him use his skills on the Horse Racing Board with 
great success. 

I'm here speaking as an individual, although I'm on 
the Board of Directors of the Thoroughbred Owners of California, 
and I think the majority of our owners are in support of 
Mr. Tourtelot. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. 

Is there anyone else who wishes to comment? Yes, 
sir; come forward, please. 

MR. FRIENDLY: My name is Ed Friendly. I'm a 
thoroughbred owner and breeder, and I'm here to speak for myself 
and also for the Thoroughbred Owners of California, which is an 
association of 1,238 members, all voluntary. 

I'm not familiar with these kind of procedures. I 



34 

mean, I wrote the Honorable Bill Lockheed [sic]. I don't know 
if you've seen the letter. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: The Honorable Bill Lockyer is not 
here right now, but he is the Chairman. 

MR. FRIENDLY: Has this letter been distributed, or 
would it be appropriate to read it now? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Nancy, could you answer that? 

MS. MICHEL: Yes, it's in there. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Evidently it has been distributed. 

MR. FRIENDLY: Good. 

If I just might add one thought here, in speaking on 
behalf of Robert Tourtelot, I'd like to mention that prior to 
being deeply involved in the multi-million business of horse 
racing, I was in the entertainment business, running a company 
called Ed Friendly Productions. Not a very inventive name, but 
that was the name of the company. Producing such shows as 
"Little House on the Prairie," and "Laugh In", "Backstairs at 
the White House," and so on. 

And I noticed that Mr. Tourtelot has had extensive 
training and has done extensive legal work in the entertainment 
business . 

And if I might add a moment of levity, anybody who 
can get along with the kooks in show business certainly ought to 
be able to get along with the kooks in horse racing. We are a 
diverse group, and I've sat in on most of the six sessions that 
Mr. Tourtelot had served as a commissioner, and I find it 
extraordinary that he has assimilated so much information in 
such a short period of time. 



2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



35 

We, in the Thoroughbred Owners, and I speak for most 
of us, think this is the finest California Horse Racing Board 
we've ever had. We are thrilled at the prospect of having 
Mr. Tourtelot be a member of that organization and help it. 

We do have a multi-million dollar business with back 
up way beyond racing. I don't think people realize how much 
money's involved in terms of the trucking industry that trucks 
the horses all over the state of California, the feed business 
that raises the feed for all those horses, the bedding, the 
multi-million dollar bedding, down to little things such as 
carrots. You go to any barn, you'll see bushels of carrots, 
plus the better's handle, plus the multi-million real estate 
involved with the tracks, plus us suckers who lose hundreds of 
millions of dollars annually on these beautiful animals. 

It's great to have the prospect of someone like 
Mr. Tourtelot representing this industry, helping California and 
this kind of tax dollars. 

Thank you very much. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you, sir, very much. 

Anyone else who wishes to comment? 

There appears to be no one. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tourtelot is a 
long-time constituent of mine. I've known the Tourtelot family 
for a long, long period. In fact, his father and I were young 
mayors together: I in Manhattan Beach while he was Rolling 
Hills, a south bay community. 

So, I'm pleased to recommend confirmation. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: All right, thank you very much, 



36 



4 



Senator Beverly. 

I thought of you when he mentioned the area from 
which he comes. I thought, well, you've got a landsman there 
with you. 

5 Senator Beverly has moved. There being no further 

6 discussion, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 
SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 
9 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 
SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 



10 

n 

12 
13 



14 SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Lockyer . 



SECRETARY WEBB: Four to zero. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Let's hold it open for the President 



Pro Tern. 



We will take a ten-minute break. 

[Thereupon a brief recess was taken.] 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The roll is open on MR. Brown. 
It's currently four to zero. 
Call the absentee. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Lockyer. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. That's five to zero 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The roll is open on Robert 



37 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



Tourtelot, Horse Racing Board. 
Call the absentee. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Lockyer. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. That's give to zero. 



6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's unanimous as well. 



Now we have Doug McGeoghegan, Fish and Game. 

Good afternoon, sir. Tell us about you. 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, my name is Doug McGeoghegan. 

I'm a fifth generation Colusa County farmer. I farm 
near Maxwell, California, where my folks still live. 

I was educated in local schools, went to Yuba 
College, had an opportunity to do a couple of fellowships that 
were agriculturally oriented, but were where agriculture was 
de-emphasized, which was probably a benefit in, hopefully, 
broadening my horizons. 

I live with my wife and two girls, Kaitlin and Kelly, 
who are 13 and 10. 

For the last 20 years or so, I've been involved in 
various kinds of agribusiness enterprise which basically revolve 
around raising rice, and I'm still in the agribusiness. I'm 
involved in land and resource management, wildlife habitat 
restoration, and even some land grading using high technology 
laser equipment. 

My reasons for wanting to be on the Fish and Game 
Commission, and incidentally, I was appointed by Governor Wilson 
in April of '93, was because I learned a long time ago that 



38 

agriculture and other land use practices can be compatible with 
wildlife resources. One goal of mine when I aspired to get on 
the Commission was to hope to get my fingerprints on having 
those practices continue and even expand. California being a 
tremendously big state and growing very quickly, you know, I 
think that's a very weighty responsibility, and I certainly 
don't take that lightly. 

Some of the affiliations that I've had over the years 
were, from 1988 to 1991, I was the Chairman of the California 
Rice Industry Committee. And I guess, although we had a 
significant amount of nudging from some good folks in the 
Legislature and around Sacramento, we did manage to accomplish 
quite a few good things in those days, and everybody's quite 
aware of the problems that were related to rice herbicides back 
in the late '80s, and the culmination of all these efforts of 
mine and folks in the Legislature and growers up country, of 
course, resulted in those — those residues in the river being 
reduced to a level that's been called tantamount to zero, and 
even resulted in the rice industry getting the Chevron 
Conservation Award in Washington, D.C. just a few months ago. 

Together with former Assemblyman Lloyd Connelly and 
members of the rice growing community, and some other 
Legislators, Mr. Areias, former Assemblyman Mr. Chandler, and so 
on, we sat down and attempted to assess the rice industry's 
strengths and weaknesses, with particular emphasis on the rice 
burning, and negotiated Assembly Bill 1378, which phases down 
the practice of rice burning to a level that approximates zero 
around the year 2000, among some other things. 



4 



7 



10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



39 

I'm claiming those as qualifications or examples of 
my — my feeling that there needs to be balance in these kind of 
decisions, and that land uses with respect to waterfowl and 
agriculture can be compatible. 

5 With that, I would certainly be glad to field any 

6 questions that the Members might have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, Senator Petris . 

8 SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I've looked over this information. When were you 
appointed, in June? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Senator Petris, in April, on or 
around April 27th, 1993. 

MS. MICHEL: With an effective date of May 13th. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Effective May 13, yes. 

There are a couple or three areas that I wanted to go 
into. One of them that's kind of dear to my heart has to do 
with the use of dogs in hunting, hounds, I guess, in hunting 
certain animals. 

I carried legislation relating to the mountain lion 
which was vetoed by the Governor, which would have removed the 
use of the dogs. 

Then it went to an initiative, that I had nothing to 
do with. I wasn't part of that, and that proposal was a lot 
tougher. It just said: no hunting at all, period, of mountain 
lions, which was not my idea. I just thought it would be better 
just to remove the animals, the dogs. 

At any rate, I have the same bill for the bear, the 
black bear, especially since I was reminded that our official 



40 

animal, the grizzly, disappeared in 1922 as a result of our lack 

2 of good restraint policy at the time. 

3 So, I'm interested now in that same subject relating 

4 to the bears that are left, the black bears. I understand that 

5 you've been looking into the matter as a result of hearings that 

6 we had on that. Your Department indicated that there would be a 
study made under your supervision, and I understand you've had 
some meetings in different parts of the state. 

I wanted to ask you first of all, how many people are 
on that? Is this a committee that you've appointed, or is it 
staff of the agency? 



7 
8 
9 

10 
II 



12 MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, Senator Petris — 



13 



21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



SENATOR PETRIS: I'm not familiar with the study. 



14 MR. McGEOGHEGAN: There's several committees, and I'm 

not exactly sure what the title is, but essentially after the 

16 Senate Natural Resources Committee voted 5-4, I guess, against 
that particular bill, I guess you could say it was relegated 

18 back to the Commission. 

The Commission was hearing that issue anyway. It 

20 



culminated in -- I guess, a decision making forum was in 
Crescent City back in late August. The Commission decided not 
to change the bear regulations with respect to the use of dogs, 
or radio collars, or anything else. 

However, and it was mostly, I think, because of the 
late hour of that particular issue, and because whether one 
agrees or not with those kinds of practices, the fact of the 
matter is that there was a group and some infrastructure, and it 
was an ongoing activity. The Commission admonished the sporting 



41 

community to get their internal politics in order and come 
forward with some representatives, because we wanted to address 
some of these areas with regard to enforcement and so on that 
were encroaching that were apparently a problem. 

Interestingly enough, bringing this to present, the 
sporting community, and the bear hunters, and so on, have been 
very forthcoming to the extent that they've even proffered some 
suggestions of their own. And those as to things that can be 
done that they could characterize as cleaning up their act and 
making the enforcement job easier. 

We don't have a finished product out on that just 
yet, but the Commission has proposed five changes in the regs as 
part of the mammal regulations that have to do with the use of 
dogs in hunting bears, and I believe — and this will have to be 
confirmed by Mr. Trainer, the Executive Director — but I 
believe that the mammal regulations will be finalized in 60 
days. We'll be hearing more about that tomorrow in San Diego 
with the next Commission meeting. 

There are some changes about to take place in some of 
those regs . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have those five been publicized yet, 
made public yet, or will that be in San Diego? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: I believe — 

SENATOR PETRIS: You mentioned five changes. 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: I believe that they have been 
publicized, because they were the result of a public comment 
period a month ago, when everyone had an opportunity on both 
sides of the issue to make recommendations to the Commission, 



42 

and that ripened into some suggested changes that the Commission 
had made. 

So yes, I believe they have been published. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you tell me what they are? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, a couple of the proposals are 
eliminate night hunting with dogs. Another one is restrict the 
use of radio telemetry collars and — 

SENATOR PETRIS: How is that to be restricted? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, the proposal, as it stands 
today, as it was recommended, is open ended, I believe. What it 
suggests is that telemetry collars would not be allowed to be 
used. That's the way that the basic proposal is that was 
recommended. 

And as I understand it, and a lot of this is 
administrative things are new to me because I'm a junior member 
on the Commission, is that unless these items are open for 
discussion, they cannot be discussed further, you know, as these 
things progress. It's an administrative thing that I can't 
really elucidate upon. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Any others? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: There's some lesser ones, and 
Senator Petris, I just don't recall all those items right now, 
but I certainly would take some steps to see that you have an 
opportunity to see what they are. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, these hearings you've described 
are the Commission's hearings? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Yes, they are. 

SENATOR PETRIS: But I understand there's also a 



43 

separate committee appointed by the Commission to look into the 
bears specifically; is that correct? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Yes, that's right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Maybe that consists of the — 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: That's part of the whole deal. Mr. 
Owen, Commissioner Owen and I are the subcommittee. We were 
appointed following our request to the sportsmen in Crescent 
City to get organized and come back to us so we could discuss 
some of these things in more detail. And so, this is just all 
part of the ongoing Commission business. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, there's no separate committee 
consisting of other persons who are not Commission members? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: I'm sorry? 

SENATOR PETRIS: There's no separate committee 
looking into this? 

The report I got seems to be erroneous . 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: The separate committee, no. As a 
matter of fact, the committee consists — the subcommittee 
consists of the two Commissioners, and there are representatives 
that the various houndsmen, hunters' organizations have put 
forward to discuss this with the Department and the Commission. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's as citizens; not as members 
of the committee, I guess? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: That's correct. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And you mentioned at San Diego, both 
sides of the issue were represented? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: The San Diego meeting, sir, is 
coming up tomorrow and Friday. 



44 

SENATOR PETRIS: The last meeting, then, was where? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, the last meeting was in 
Sacramento. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's where you had both sides come 
in and discuss — 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: There was input given on both sides 
of that. That's the way the mammal regs work. 

In fact, I ' d be happy to ask Mr. Trainer to get some 
information to you on — that more specifically defines the 
Department's procedure in the establishment of the annual, soon 
to be come biennial, animal regulations and the biennial fishing 
regulations . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you recall which groups are 
represented on the non-hunters side of the issue? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, in the particular committee 
that consists of Commissioners and houndsmen folks -- 

SENATOR PETRIS: I don't mean them. I mean at the 
hearings, when the public comes forward and testifies. 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, I can recall one in 
particular, and that was — that would be the Fund for Animals, 
that is usually represented in those public forums. There are 
other individuals, and I don't recall whether they profess to be 
representing themselves or any groups, but of note, of course, 
is the Fund for Animals and the Mountain Lion Foundation. 

SENATOR PETRIS: There's been a push for a different 
approach to management of the animal kingdom in our state, that 
is the wild animal, to go to a multi-species approach instead of 
concentrating on each one separately. 



45 

Are you in favor of that? Does that seem to be a 
good approach? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, it's — it's kind of like 
stealth technology ten years ago. We all knew what we wanted it 
to do, but didn't know exactly what it was supposed to look 
like. 

I favor, you know, and this is just a concept, I 
favor an ecosystem method of managing species so that they don't 
become rare, threatened, or endangered, you know. And 
hopefully, you know, something like that can be developed on, 
perhaps, a watershed basis, which is just, again, a concept. 

You recall, of course, the issue regarding the 
California gnat catcher on coastal sage scrub in Southern 
California. Apparently, the Secretary of the Interior, 
Mr. Babbit, was sufficiently impressed with the ecosystem 
management concept as presented by Governor Wilson and Secretary 
for Resources, Doug Wheeler, that he tied the federal listing of 
the California gnat catcher to that multi-system, or that NCCP 
concept. And we all cheered that, because it was kind of a 
milestone. Because now, it's going to be looked at, you know, 
very, very seriously as perhaps, you know, an alternate means, 
or an improved means of managing these species. 

The ultimate outcome, of course, you'd hope that it 
would make the individual listings and the individual management 
of these things become a moot issue. 

SENATOR PETRIS: There are certain kinds of hunting 
methods that, it seems to me, need particular attention because 
they're very painful to the animal involved: traps, bow and 



4 



7 



46 

arrow, dogs sometimes. And it's a state policy that the 
Commission consider the welfare of the individual animals when 
3 looking into these things . 

Do you agree with that general mandate? 
5 MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, yes, and sometimes, if you're 

not involved in that particular kind of activity, sometimes you 
really don't become cognizant of that fact that it exists until 
somebody brings it to your attention. 
9 At Crescent City, when we were hearing this bear and 

dog issue last late August, I became aware of the fact that 
there is a training method that involved putting the target 
animal inside a cage and letting the thing roll around, and it 
— apparently it was to facilitate the training of a particular 
dog. 

The Commission, including me, did not look with favor 
upon that practice, and it was rescinded or taken out of the 
mammal regs . The privilege was revoked. 

As I learn about these things, if they're like that, 
then chances are the answer will be yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How long did that last, that cage? 
How long did they do that? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Honestly, I can't tell you. I 
23 don ' t know . 

24 



10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



25 
26 
27 
28 



SENATOR PETRIS: You don't know whether it was an 
old, old practice that had been done for a long time, or just 
tried recently? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: I would just suspect, and I'm not 
an authority, I defer to the authorities on this, it's probably 



47 

been in practice awhile. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I understand that when the 
Commission completes its work on the bear problem, it's going to 
issue a report, and that's sometime in April? Is there a fixed 
date for that? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: I'm going to defer that answer to 
the Executive Director of the Commission because I'm not sure 
when the final document will be — there is a bear document out 
now, but when the final regulations, mammal regulations, are 
issued, they will include the portion that has to do with the 
regulations that are either left to stand, or as they're 
amended, which will be all part of the greater mammal regs 
document. And that will be the rules with regard to the use of 
hounds in hunting. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You don't know at this point what 
those rules are going to be? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: No, I don't, sir. 

I only know that there are five major -- well, two 
major and a couple of minor changes suggested that have to do 
with your particular subject. 

SENATOR PETRIS: There was some controversy over a 
decision made by the Board, the Commission, involving an animal, 
I guess, in the desert that's under — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The Mojave ground squirrel. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mojave ground squirrel. I've 
never encountered a Mojave ground squirrel, but I'm told it's on 
the endangered species, but it was removed from that category. 

Were you present at the time? 



2 



10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



48 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Yes, I was. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you tell me something about 

3 that? 

4 MR. McGEOGHEGAN: That was my first meeting, and it 
was in Bakersfield. And apparently sometime before I was placed 

6 on the Commission, the County of Kern and others had come 

forward and requested the Commission look at whether or not the 
delisting action of the Mojave ground squirrel might be 
warranted. There was various groups involved. 

After, you know, considerable hearing -- the meetings 
last two days, but it seems to me we took testimony on that for 
a full day — the Commission moved — there was five 
Commissioners present. The Commission voted 4-0, with one 
abstention, to move to delist the squirrel because, in the 
Commission's judgment, those various criteria by which a 
species, either listing or continued listing would be warranted, 
according to the Commission in the Commission's judgment were 
not met. 

I voted on the side of the delisting action. I was 
amongst the four that moved to delist. 

That delisting action is currently hung up, I'd guess 
you'd say, in the Office of Administrative Law, not over the way 
the decision went but something to do with procedure. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How does it get there? Did somebody 
appeal it? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: It's been appealed anyway. But I 
think — well, whether or not — I'm not sure about this. This 
is a legal question, I'm sure, but I'm given to understand that 



49 

it — there might have been a problem with regard to OAL 
irrespective of the way it went, or irrespective of how it was 
appealed. But the fact of the matter is that there are several 
groups that have signed in who object to the Commission's action 
to move to delist. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you a sportsman? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Yes, I am. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you fish? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: I do. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you hunt? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: I do. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What do you hunt? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, I'm predominately a bird 
hunter, but in my maturity, I guess, the best way to 
characterize my hunting activities is that I hunt considerably 
less and enjoy it considerably more. But what I like to do is 
bird hunt, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That means ducks and pheasants? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: That means ducks and pheasants. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: With a Nintendo game you can do it 
at home . 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: My roommate does it all the time. 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: And by the way, I should point out, 
I have one of those. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you belong to Ducks Unlimited? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: I do. 



50 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you consider their role as a very 
positive one in the conservation of the species? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, yes, I do. 

As a matter of fact, Ducks Unlimited had its genesis 
a long, long time ago, and they operated predominantly in 
Canada. But the interesting thing is, is that as -- well, let's 
use the Pacific Flyway, for an example. As Sacramento Valley 
natural existing wetlands have diminished for various reasons, 
both agricultural and development, and so on, Ducks Unlimited, 
among others, have become very much aware that the rice lands of 
the Central Valley provide a tremendous augment to critically 
short wetlands . 

Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy and the 
California Waterfowl Association, and the Rice Industry 
Association, together with the California Department of Fish and 
Game have been — have formed a partnership called the Rice 
Lands Habitat Partnership. And what they're trying to do is 
investigate to see whether or not putting water on the fields, 
the rice fields, after harvest instead of burning the residue, 
and maintain at a depth that's beneficial for all the birds -- 
that is to say, that's 32 or so species of neotropical birds as 
well as ducks, geese, and tundra swans, and giant garter snakes, 
and other rare, threatened things in the rice fields -- whether 
or not that ecosystem can be productive and beneficial to that 
broad spectrum of creatures. 

Ducks Unlimited has often been characterized as a 
hunting organization. Interestingly enough, you know, I find 
hunters amongst the Nature Conservancy, and some other groups, 



51 

which sort of surprised me. I don't know why; maybe it's just 
just a stigma that's attached. 

DU's concerned about a lot more than just ducks , and 
our partnership, and all the research we've done, have shown 
that the activities of DU, and CWA, and the Nature Conservancy, 
are beneficial to a tremendous broad spectrum of creatures. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're a rice farmer? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Yes, I am. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are there endangered species that 
mess around with rice? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, this is a dynamic number, but 
I'm given to understand that there is something like 16 rare, 
threatened and endangered species that live on or about the rice 
field ecosystem. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Does that endanger your operations? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Has he been talking to Senator 
Campbell? A "dynamic" number. That's the second time today we 
had the "dynamic" planning. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I'm making due note of that. 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Would it be easier to say I don't 
know how many there are? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Anyway, do they give you a problem, 
the ones that are on the endangered list, that would urge you to 
delist them as well, or some of them? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: No. 

Actually, we've been fortunate, because there's been 
several creatures, like the Aleutian Canada goose, that was 



52 

listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and so on, and the 
recovery plans put in place for that have been very successful. 
And I understand that the Aleutian Canada goose might even been 
down-listed soon to rare, which is a real success story. 

I don't know about the elderberry longhorn beetle; I 
haven't checked in on that one lately. 

I guess when — when the law came closest to being a 
problem is when it was applied to the extent a species was 
almost listed that, apparently, did not merit listing. And I 
believe that's the story of the tricolored bird. But 
interestingly enough, there were so many people involved in 
that, that the good information got out, and a listing was 
avoided. 

Had it been listed, and the listing not been 
meritorious, yes, it would have been a problem. 

SENATOR PETRIS: But it didn't become a problem. 

Do you think the fact that you're likely to encounter 
in your own work and business the problem of endangered species, 
does that have any impact on how you treat other endangered 
species as a member of the Commission? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, I would say yes, because the 
connotation is that I'm very sensitive to trying to balance, you 
know, the needs of ongoing business and industry with the needs 
of wildlife. So yes, it does impact it, and I think it impacts 
it favorably in my estimation. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Which direction? Favorably in which 
direction? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, favorably from both 



53 

directions, and that is to say, you know, I've always prided 
myself on trying to take a balanced approach to these things, 
sometimes even to the extent, as an example, of the rice 
industry's efforts on the burning and so on, to step into the 
breach and take a great leap of faith, because we know that 
there's more people out there than just rice farmers, and 
there's also people out there that care very much about what 
happens to some of these creatures. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: We have the California Endangered 
Species Act and the federal one. Which of the two are more 
restrictive? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, I'm not a scholar on this, 
and Mr. Frank Boren, my fellow member of the Commission, is 
continually admonishing me to become more of a scholar, and I 
hope, you know, by the time I'm on there as long as he, I will 
be. 

But as I understand it, the California Act lists 
plants and animals, and the federal act, I believe, has expanded 
that to include other kinds of insects, which I don't think the 
state act expands to include insects, Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: There's a division of responsibility 
between the federal and the state. 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Yes, and that's an interesting 
question. 

That's why we've thought that if we're going to be 



54 

implementing the state act, then the best approach to this would 
be to try to maintain some kind of local control. And when I 
say local control, I mean trying to implement the state act for 
the benefit of the state creatures and not leaving a vacuum that 
the federal government would purport to rush in and fill, 
because when you get in bed with the federal government, you get 
more than a good night's sleep. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Commission has been criticized 
because at least four of the members come from the fishing and 
hunting background, and not so much in the protection of 
wildlife. 

Do you think there's a balance on the Commission 
today to do both, protect wildlife and promote the game of 
fishing and hunting? 

There is a balance of the members, although four of 
the members come from a fishing and hunting background. 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, as I understand it today, I 
don't know that Mr. Owen is a hunter, the gentleman from Orange 
County. If he is, he probably, you know, might have just taken 
it up on a limited basis. 

There are only four members on the Commission today. 
Mr. Ben Biaggini, of course, his term has expired. But of the 
four, Mr. Owen, I don't believe, is a hunter. Mr. Biaggini is 
gone . 

Mr. Taucher from Long Beach, if he's involved in 
sporting activities at all any more, it's very little. 

I'm a hunter, but, you know, I'm not a zealot. I 
consider myself to be a balanced kind of person and a 



7 



55 

businessman. 

2 The other one, Mr. Frank Boren, is the former 

3 President of the Nature Conservancy, and he characterizes 

4 himself as an environmentalist, but I think what I would call 
him is a conservationist. And I would guess that he doesn't 

6 hunt, although I've gotten some surprises the last couple of 
years . 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I've got to ask one. 

I'm just curious. You referred to the giant garter 
13 snake? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Giant garter snake. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I'm not a fan of snakes, and I keep 
reading that in the Natomas area, this snake is prevalent. I've 
never seen one. 

18 How big are these rascals? 

19 MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, I believe the giant garter 
snake at maturity can be as much as five feet long. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I hope I don't see any out there. 
They're harmless and nonpoisonous, I gather. 
3 MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Nonpoisonous, harmless and 

24 



10 
11 
12 



16 

17 



21 

22 
-> 



25 
26 
27 
28 



nonpoisonous . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you find any about April 1st, 
I ' d like a few. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: You've got it. 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



56 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'll think of something 
appropriate . 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: I stepped on one the other day, 
you'll be happy to know. And just like the document says, they 

5 have a terrible smell. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

In your tenure so far on the Commission, what was the 

toughest decision you had to make, the one that stands out in 
your mind? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, the majority of our time and 
effort is spent on, of course, endangered species, environmental 
restoration, diminishing habitat kind of things. 

I would have to say it would have been the Mojave 
ground squirrel . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present that 
wishes to make any comment? 

MR. MEYER: Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, my name 
is Shel Meyer. I'm President of NorCal Fishing Guides and 
Sportsmen's Association, Chairman of the Central Valley 
Fisheries Coalition, which is made up of 11 of the largest 
fishing organizations in California. 

I'm also speaking today on behalf of Zeke Grader from 
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen, and Roger Thomas, who's 
the President of the Golden State Fishermen's Association. 

We all support the confirmation of Mr. McGeoghegan to 
the Commission. We feel since he's been on the Commission, he's 
done an excellent, and it's been years since we've had a 
Northern California representative sit on the Commission. 



57 

So, we urge you today to please confirm him to that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay, is there another gentleman 
that wishes to testify. 

MR. PALMER: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Rules Committee. My name is Mark Palmer. I'm Executive 
Director of the Mountain Lion Foundation. 

I'm not here to oppose Mr. McGeoghegan today, and it 
may sound like I am, but in fact I'd rather have Mr. McGeoghegan 
than some of the other members of the Commission on there. 

Basically, our concern, again, getting back to this 
question of, as has been stated several times, the question of 
balance. And let me give it to you, I guess, from my 
perspective as a person who looks at the Fish and Game 
Commission on a regular basis. 

We have Mr. Biaggini. Mr. Biaggini has left, as was 
said, and he's — that position is now vacant. Mr. Biaggini was 
a businessman from San Francisco and a sport hunter. I'll come 
back to his vacant position at this point [sic]. 

We have Mr. Al Taucher, and though Mr. Taucher is not 
a hunter now, but Mr. Taucher owns a gun shop in Los Angeles. 
He has been a very active and avid hunter in his time. 

We have additionally Mr. Boren. We supported 
Mr. Boren very enthusiastically. I believe Mr. Boren does do 
some duck hunting. He's also an attorney for ARCO, a corporate 
attorney. Nonetheless, as a former president of the Nature 
Conservancy, I think he's done an excellent job and I was 
delighted to support him. 

We then have Mr. Gus Owen. Mr. Gus Owen, I 



58 

understand, does do some hunting on the side. Again, he's a 
businessman from Orange County. 

And I think you can see sort of a trend we're seeing 
here . We have people who are involved somewhat in the sport who 
are businessmen, who are all the same race, who are all male. 
And it comes a question of what the Commission looks like, and 
how the Commission is going to look like. 

Again, that's not Mr. McGeoghegan ' s fault. I think 
that's the fault of the Wilson administration, and I've made no 
secret of our concern with the Wilson administration and what we 
think they're doing to the California Department of Fish and 
Game. 

The public trust and the question of balance, we need 
to think about that, I think, a little bit, both the Wilson 
administration, which I don't think is thinking much these days, 
and the State Legislature, about balance. It's fine to balance 
the Fish and Game Commission with businessmen and with people 
with an interest in sport hunting. I think that's fine to have 
that attitude on there, but the question then comes: what about 
some of the other commissions? What about the Water Resources 
Control Board, which advocates water allocations? What about 
the Department of Forestry and the Forestry Board, which 
advocates cutting trees down? Are we going to balance them as 
well to look after the wildlife as well as the Fish and Game 
Commission, or should, in fact, we have the Fish and Game 
Commission not be balanced, but be in fact the advocate for 
wildlife, which, I think, Mr. McGeoghegan will do on many cases; 
in some cases, he won't. 



59 

Nonetheless, I think the Fish and Game Commission is 
the advocate for wildlife, and then you find the balance when 
those other commissions come together and make their decisions 
at that level, rather than having a balanced Fish and Game 
Commission which is co-opted by other commissions making land 
use decisions and water allocation decisions. 

The question comes up of the public trust. We have 
the case of the bobcat, which my organization's been very 
actively involved in. We had legislation, as you know, before 
the State Senate. 

The Fish and Game Commission ignored our request to 
look at bobcat trapping. Again, this predates 

Mr. McGeoghegan ' s appointment, so it's not his issue; it's not 
something he's dealt with. 

But here we have the bobcat in California. There are 
about 100 people in California who trap bobcats for sport and 
for fur. About a thousand bobcats a year, their skin is trimmed 
out and they send it off to Europe or Japan, or someplace, and 
sell it. And those hundred people basically are taking my 
bobcats, they're taking your bobcats, they're taking the 
public's bobcats. 

And the question is: where does the public 
responsibility of the Fish and Game Commission lie? Where does 
the public trust lie if we're going to deal with these kinds of 
questions? 

Again, that's a broader issue than Mr. McGeoghegan. 
It's an issue of the Wilson administration and what the Fish and 
Game Commission — we're very concerned of the make-up of the 



60 

Commission. 

Let's get back to that vacancy that we have. I think 
there's a way for the Wilson administration to do something nice 
for us. I doubt they will, but you might want to consider that 
as part of your charge when you're considering Mr. McGeoghegan ' s 
appointment . 

Again, I think we can work with Mr. McGeoghegan on a 
variety of issues. Sometimes we disagree, and we'll see how 
that all works out. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Question. 

Did you or a representative of your organization 
attend any of the meetings relating to the black bear problem? 

MR. PALMER: We were not involved. There were a 
series of Fish and Game Commission hearings held in Crescent 
City, and there was another one in, I think, Bridgeport, on the 
other side of the Sierra. 

We did not involve ourselves in those hearings . 

Since then, I understand from Mr. McGeoghegan that 
there ' s been a subcommittee which has been meeting with the 
houndsmen. We were not involved in those meetings. 

Now, as I understand it, the recommendations from 
that subcommittee are going to be coming before the public 
through the process of the mammal hunting regulations, and we'll 
be able to get a look at the product of that subcommittee and be 
able to comment on it during that process over the next few 
months . 

SENATOR PETRIS: But you haven't been invited to join 



61 

■ 

in? 

MR. PALMER: Not to those subcommittee meetings. 

We certainly were involved in the public meetings, 
and that's an open series that anyone can attend. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You did go to the public meetings 
and offer testimony? 

MR. PALMER: We have been to the last one on 
recommendations. We will be going to them once we get the 
specific regulations as far — and take a look at them. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Were you familiar with the five that 
he described earlier? 

MR. PALMER: No. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You hadn't heard of them? 

MR. PALMER: No, not yet. 

I think that this is the publication meeting, if I'm 
not mistaken, where it comes out and they announce it, and then 
the public, and then we'll be getting them, presumably, in the 
next few weeks . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: If I may, how do you develop the 
possessive quality of your rhetoric about "your bobcat and 
mine", and so forth? How does that come about? 

MR. PALMER: I appreciate that question. 

Bobcats, by law, belong to the people of the State of 
California, but do they belong to anyone? Probably not. That's 
the legal standing that they have. 

And certainly, there are room to debate to as to 
what's the best way to manage bobcats. I'm just wondering if 



62 

we're not ignoring the greater public interest in order to go 
for a more narrow interest that attends Fish and Game Commission 
meetings . 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I think that's a very good answer. 

Basically, I think I'm probably as supportive of 
animal rights, and whatever, as anybody that you're dealing 
with. 

MR. PALMER: I think you are, sir. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: It's somewhat iconoclastic for a guy 
that grew up in West Philadelphia, but as I get older, I have a 
greater, stronger, feeling about that, I might add, which maybe 
strange, but that's the way I feel. 

But I just wanted to understand what you're saying. 
Both of you have been, in my judgment, excellent witnesses. 
I've enjoyed your remarks, Mr. McGeoghegan, very much, and yours 
I always have enjoyed in times past. 

Thank you for your answer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's see if there are any 
additional witnesses. Thank you for your comments. 

MS. HANDLEY: Hello. I'm Virginia Handley with the 
Fund for Animals. 

There has been a publication that the Commission 
staff has put out that's excellent, that summarizes everything 
that's happened. It's in that publication that there are these 
five suggestions. 

I'd asked Mr. Pelsman, who's with the Commission 
staff, if you had gotten one of those, and he thought that he 
had sent one to your office, but that would certainly be 



63 

available. It is an excellent summation. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Chances are I have received it, but 
the present condition of my desk makes it very difficult for me 
to find it. I'll make a new effort. 

MS. HANDLEY: Get another one. 

I don't remember all of the five. I know besides the 
two that were stated of the night hunting, and another one is 
about the dogs that are on the trucks. You know, they go down 
the road, and they're sitting on the hoods or the roof of the 
truck. They may ban that because it appears that people may be 
hunting from the roadside. You know how the dogs like that. 

There's another one concerning the guides, to make 
sure that they're licensed guides. 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Thank you for refreshing my memory, 
Virginia. 

Excuse me, but it's a hunter who engages a guide has 
to check and make sure that that guide is indeed a licensed 
guide and current . 

MS. HANDLEY: I attend the Commission meetings 
regularly, all around the state, so I have seen Mr. McGeoghegan 
in many instances. I really have to compliment him on the fact 
that he's always there, for one thing. He is always attentive, 
always prepared, very professional, inquisitive, asking 
questions. So, I think he's doing an excellent job of that, and 
I think he's doing what Governor Wilson appointed him to do. 

We were pleased in Crescent City when he did vote to 
remove the temporary permit that houndsmen were getting to 
possess wildlife temporarily, put them in this rolling cage, or 



64 

in a burlap bag, to train their dogs, which basically terrorizes 
the animal, and we never knew whether they were really letting 
them go again. They did move to rescind those permits. 

He voted to add the riparian bush rabbit, too -- 
brush rabbit, and I appreciate the pep talk that he gave to the 
houndsmen in Crescent City. Although we did not get the vote 
that we wanted, he did give them a good talking to, and I think 
that has partly resulted in the talks that are going on now, and 
maybe some of these other issues being settled. 

I did attend the hearing on the Mojave ground 
squirrel and listened to a lot of the testimony. I felt that 
the scientific testimony was very much in support of keeping 
them on the list, and I felt that the vote was more of an 
economic one than a scientific one. 

I'm concerned about a possible conflict of interest 
when you have endangered species on your own property, and then 
you're called upon to make decisions about their future. I 
think there is a potential for a conflict there. 

I'm concerned about this idea of multi-species 
management, because I am afraid of animals falling through the 
cracks, which is a phrase that Mr. McGeoghegan mentioned 
yesterday: yes, some may fall through the cracks. I don't want 
to see that happen, and I'm afraid sometimes with multi-species 
management it's really an effort to, well, let's take them all 
in one big lump, then a few can be put aside, and we're afraid 
of that. 

We have a lot of interest in the Commission besides 
just the hunting and certainly the trapping. I've had an 



65 

ongoing effort to try to do something about how animals are 
killed in the traps once they are caught. Right now, they are 
clubbed to death, strangled, beaten, choked, very inhumane. We 
wouldn't allow it anywhere else, in any animal shelter, even in 
any slaughter house. So, we have that interest besides the 
hunting methods . 

We deal a lot, too, with the wild animals in 
captivity, and that's an important jurisdiction of the 
Commission. We feel and hope that Mr. McGeoghegan will be 
sympathetic to those issues, too. And we hope that one day that 
we can have a more direct representation for our interests on 
the Commission. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone else present who 
would wish to speak? Yes, sir. 

MR. HEMANN: Mr. Chairman and Members, my name is 
Hans Hemann. I'm representing the Sierra Club. 

We do not have a position on Mr. McGeoghegan ' s 
appointment, but we do have some of the same concerns that the 
Fund for Animals and the Mountain Lion Foundation have already 
represented. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Did you wish to make any comment that might further 
-- well, let me ask a question. 

There's been some expression of anxiety about the 
general structure and perspective of the Commission members. I 
guess the issue is resource use versus resource conservation. 



66 

Could you just provide us any general comment with 
respect to your philosophy or approach, if there's a tension 
between those two objectives, and resolve the tension? 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Well, I guess I could take a crack 
at it. 

The historical, you know, precedent is that I was 
raised in an environment where some hunting took place. You 
know, I inherited that, I guess, part of the legacy. 

I mentioned earlier that although I enjoy that kind 
of thing, as people will tell you, particularly up country, that 
I venture out a lot more often with a camera and a pair of 
binoculars than I do with a firearm. And I hunt considerably 
less and and enjoy it substantially more. 

I guess I'm an advocate with regard to the game 
things, as I believe in conservation through wise use. Wildlife 
are not inanimate objects that can be stored on a shelf. That's 
not an indifferent remark; it's just simply a fact. 

As you've got finite and diminishing habitat, 
oftentimes there are surplus animals that can be, quote, 
"harvested", which is fashionable to say these days. And 
indeed, that kind of thing is indicated. 

There are some things that concern me about well 
meaning attempts, you know, to control predators, because when 
the voter goes and says, "Stop the killing," and dusts off and 
presumes that there won't be any more killing of the particular 
animal, and then the populations grow and are aggravated by the 
encroachment of humanity and cause problems with people, you 
know, then people have a tendency to say, "See? If the 



67 

harvesting would have been apace, or kept these numbers at a 
level that would control the predation, we wouldn't have 
children being mauled; we wouldn't have numerous attacks by- 
bears and lions, and so on." 

That's just a perspective, and it's thought-provoking 
because, you know, to protect animals is very tantalizing and 
very compelling. And I don't think anybody here would not be 
attracted to a scenario where nothing ever dies . 

But when it comes to the hunting legacy, and for 
those of us who have been doing it for generations, and based 
upon that philosophy of keeping those numbers abundant by making 
sure that they don't reach a surplus beyond their ecosystem, I 
think that that's desirable and even indicated. 

But I'm not a zealot, you know. I don't represent an 
extreme on that on either side; never have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the pleasure? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I might add, since it's not 
reflected in our files, that both Senator Thompson and 
Congressman Vic Fazio have called indicating their support for 
your confirmation. 

Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 



68 



Lockyer . 



SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MR. McGEOGHEGAN: Thank you. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
3:53 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 



69 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

// IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 



4 

LIS / 



this / day of March, 1994. 





EVELYN J. W1ZAK 
Shorthand 'Reported 




249-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.50 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 249-R when ordering. 



LSOO 
no. jo 



= HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1994 
2:52 P.M. 



OOCUM^WTS DEPT. 

APR 2 6 1994 

•AN W^22* 
^BUC UBBABt 



250-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1994 
2:52 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

MARZ GARCIA, Member 

Public Employment Relations Board 

SENATOR MIKE THOMPSON 

BONNIE NEELY, Member 
State Board of Forestry 

GIL MURRAY, Vice President 
California Forestry Association 

ERIC CARLESON 

California Licensed Foresters Association 

THARON E. O'DELL, Member 
State Board of Forestry 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 

MARZ GARCIA, Member 

Public Employment Relations Board 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Thoughts on Current Assignment 1 

Hardest Part of Job 2 

Number of Hours Per Week 2 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Collective Bargaining for Public Employees .... 2 

Mediation Role 3 

Reason for Time Delays in Decisions 4 

Number of Cases Per Year 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Most Significant Problem Facing PERB Today .... 5 

Opinion on Collective Bargaining for 

Public Employees or Binding Arbitration 5 

Motion to Confirm 7 

Committee Action 7 

BONNIE NEELY, Member 

California State Board of Forestry 7 

Introduction by SENATOR THOMPSON 7 

Background and Experience 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Tenure on Board of Forestry 10 

Tough Decisions while on Board 10 



IV 



INDEX ( Continued ^ 

Public Appointments that Are Politically 

and Philosophically Close to Industry 11 

Response to Analysis by League for Coastal 

Protection of Votes while on Coastal 

Commission 11 

Enforcement 12 

Question by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Current Status on Coastal Commission 13 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Analysis by League for Coastal Protection 

of Votes while Serving on Coastal 

Commission 14 

Malibu Enforcement Votes 15 

General Response to Low Rating 16 

Local Coastal Plans 18 

Cease and Desist Orders 19 

Coastal Commission Votes on Visual Impact .... 20 

Votes on Density 22 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Board of Forestry Members Representing 

Environmental Interests 2 3 

Hardest Working Member of Coastal Commission ... 23 

Witnesses in Support: 

GIL MURRAY, Vice President 

California Forestry Association 24 

ERIC CARLESON 

California Licensed Foresters Association 25 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Chingford School of Music in England 25 



V 

■ 

INDEX (Continued) 

Motion to Confirm 26 

Committee Action 2 6 

THARON E. O'DELL, Member 

California State Board of Forestry 27 

Background and Experience 2 7 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Resource Management Issues 2 8 

Thoughts on Sierra Accord and Others 29 

Possibility of Different Perspective as 

Industry Representatiev 2 9 

Explanation of Nature of Industry's 

Side in Debates 30 

Even vs. Uneven Aged Management of Trees 32 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Ideal Plan for Forest Management 3 3 

Past Predates Law 34 

Plan for Next Hundred Years 3 5 

Reason for Current Short-term Plans 36 

Long-term Planning by Companies 3 7 

Next Step in Planning 38 

Optimism for Future 39 

Need for Longer Planning Horizon 39 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Obligation of Industry Representative 

on Board 4 

Witnesses in Support: 

GIL MURRAY, Vice President 

California Forestry Association 41 



VI 



INDEX (Continued) 

ERIC CARLESON 

California Licensed Foresters Association 42 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Exemplary Representative from Industry 4 2 

Motion to Confirm 4 3 

Committee Action 4 3 

Termination of Proceedings 4 3 

Certificate of Reporter 44 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess if we do it in order, and 
I hate to keep Senator Thompson waiting, but Marz, I guess we've 
got to start with you. Otherwise, we've got two, and it'll be 
too confusing, perhaps, but I think Mr. Garcia will be brief. 

MR. GARCIA: Should I just start? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Please. How are you today? 

MR. GARCIA: I'm fine, Senator. How are you? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How are you liking this 
assignment, and what do you think about it? 

MR. GARCIA: It's enjoyable. You know, you get to 
deal with real disputes between people. And it's valuable in 
that they have a place to talk. The institutions keep 
functioning, and it's efficient because the budget's been 
knocked from 110 to 40, but we're maintaining the caseload and I 
do enjoy it. 

It's a narrow area of law, but something I studied in 
law school. I'm glad to be back in it. 

As far as I know, I have no opposition at this stage. 
I won't say too much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And you do have one supporter. 

MR. GARCIA: Do I? Did a letter of support come in, 
Senator? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know, a supporter that 
says: "Marz Garcia will be fine." 

It's a little underwhelming. 

[Laughter. ] 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But it is support. 

What's the hardest part of your job? 

MR. GARCIA: Keeping busy enough, frankly, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Really? 

MR. GARCIA: Yes, really. I think, you know, after 
we get some more caseload from the charter school situation and 
some other things, we're going to become more interesting there. 

There's something else that I think that the 
Legislative Analyst's Office is going to make a recommendation, 
and that might become a difficulty, but a manageable difficulty. 
There's going to be a recommendation, I believe, that the ALRB 
be merged into PERB, and that could be both controversial but is 
something that the Legislature will be faced with. And I think 
that that might be a difficult period of time for us. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you estimate how many hours a 
week do you wind up actually — 

MR. GARCIA: Oh, we're all there on a full-time 
basis, but it gives us plenty of time to consider the caseload, 
is all. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Members? Questions from Rules 
Members? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's your impression of the 
concept that we have in the statute, not very many years, on 
collective bargaining for public employees? Is that working 
out? 

MR. GARCIA: I think so. You know, there are very 
few strikes any more. 

From time to time, we get requests for injunctions, 



but then when we get involved with it, they seem to settle 
things . 

I think it ' s working out because you have now given a 
place that these people can come to to get their disputes 
settled, and it's much like the judiciary. A large part of the 
heat in the dispute goes out if they know they're going to get a 
fair hearing somewhere and a decision is going to be made. 

So, I say yes, that the concept does work. 

SENATOR PETRIS: At what point do you get that 
dispute? Do you also do a mediation role, or is it all after 
everything's kind of collapsed and there's no further 
negotiations? 

MR. GARCIA: Well, the Board, in addition to handling 
appeals from disputes, also administers the agency. In the 
field offices, they entertain complaints. They run elections; 
they oversee elections . 

If a charge is made, and there is a complaint that 
does issue, then it goes to a hearing officer, and that officer 
will try to mediate the dispute or get them into a settlement 
conference. Eventually it will go to a full-blown hearing if 
it's not settled. And then if one party or the other, or both, 
don't like the results of the hearing, then they can appeal to 
the Board, and then that's when we get it and act much like an 
appellate court. 

We rely extensively on NLRB precedent. The Board now 
has 1200 precedents behind it, so pretty much everyone knows the 
rules . 

If we go back to your initial question, has 



collective bargaining worked, now that the rules are pretty much 
established, yes, it works. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm impressed by a 1990 report of 
the Little Marks Commission. Well, it was the Little Hoover at 
that time. It says that we in California take five times as 
long as a New York similar board to make decisions. 

Is that because we're newer at it, or are you 
familiar with that report? 

MR. GARCIA: I think I have heard something about 
that, but the decisions that are made are pretty well carefully 
thought out, and I don't know why that is. We don't — I mean, 
we have plenty of time to consider the cases, and they do get a 
thorough review. We review the entire file that went through 
the hearing process. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm not advocating that we measure 
your effectiveness by speeding up the process or having a lot 
more cases per given period of time, but I'm curious about the 
contrast. I thought you might have looked into that. 

MR. GARCIA: I think we have five or six hundred 
cases a year begin the process, and then they fall by the 
wayside as they get settled or they — 

SENATOR PETRIS: How many cases? 

MR. GARCIA: Five to six hundred, if I remember 
correctly. They get started; they enter the process. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question for Senator 
Garcia . 

What do you consider the most significant problem 



facing PERB today? What do you see as the biggest problem? 

MR. GARCIA: We're a little short, I think, in the 
area of administrative law judges. We could probably use one or 
two more, because now they have been asked to get even more 
heavily involved in mediating disputes. And in some cases, 
staff members are now handling disputes, whereas the ALJs used 
to handle that before. But we now have some other staff members 
at a little lower level that are mediating the disputes. 

But I don't think we have tremendous problems. I 
think we're able to handle the workload. In the future there 
may be some difficulty if there is a merger between the two 
boards, but I don't think there's anything going on there that 
can't be handled. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you have any opinion on collective 
bargaining for public employees? 

MR. GARCIA: Yes, I think — 

SENATOR AYALA: Or binding arbitration? 

MR. GARCIA: Well, a provision in the law encourages 
binding arbitration, and the NLRB case law has now made that 
even more of, let's say, a precedent, and the law encourages it. 

The parties themselves, if they have agreed to that 
concept in that contract, it ought to be respected. And when a 
dispute comes in that is arbitratable or has a grievance 
procedure, we tend to defer and try to get them to settle it 
themselves . 

So, I think it's a good idea. And there's another 
concept out there called interest-based bargaining, which I 
think the Legislature has, to some extent, funded. But that 



also seems to be a workable concept, in that that requires a 
training process where you take the so-called adversaries, the 
management and the union, train them to consider how they can 
make the result of any negotiation a winner for everybody and 
focus really on what the issues are. That's another thing that 
has a great potential to cut down the workload. 

SENATOR AYALA: But you say the law encourages this 
binding arbitration for public employees? 

MR. GARCIA: Yes. Between case law and precedent. 
If the parties enter into a contract that has a binding 
arbitration provision in it, the law has developed to a stage 
now where both the NLRB and PERB will defer jurisdiction. 

SENATOR AYALA: If both parties agree. 

MR. GARCIA: Have agreed that this is the type -- if 
they agree in the contract that, let's say, renegotiation of 
salaries is something that, if they can't get to it, should go 
through a grievance procedure, or if they have agreed to that in 
the contract, and we see that in the contract, we will defer 
until they go through that process. 

SENATOR AYALA: That's also for salaries, not 
necessarily for benefits? 

MR. GARCIA: It could be for anything. All of those 
are what they call the terms and conditions of employment, and 
we have jurisdiction over those issues. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

Is there anyone present who'd wish to add anything at 
all? 



What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move the nominee to the Floor. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion to recommend 
confirmation. Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 
Lockyer . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Members, very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our next matter is the 
confirmation of Ms. Bonnie Neely. 

Senator Thompson, do you want to initiate this? 

SENATOR THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. President and 
Members . 

I'm in kind of a unique position today. I have two 
of my constituents here for confirmation. The next person that 
you'll hear from is Tharon O'Dell, who is also being nominated 
to be a member of the State Board of Forestry. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which one do you like more? 

[Laughter. ] 



8 

SENATOR THOMPSON: Let me just say on Mr. 0' Dell's 
behalf that I think that he's filling the position of the 
industry position, a former professor at Humboldt State. I 
don't think that the Governor could have found a better industry 
appointment to make. 

I'd like to say that before I introduce to you the 
person who I came down to talk about, a good friend of mine, not 
only someone who's very qualified for this spot, but a good 
friend of mine, Bonnie Neely, who's a member of the Board of 
Supervisors up in Humboldt County and was, before her 
appointment to the Board of Forestry, a member of the Coastal 
Commission. 

I think it's important to note, and I understand that 
there was a letter at the last minute that was filed in 
opposition to Supervisor Neely. And I guess it was kind of a 
boiler-plate letter that talked about better balancing the make- 
up of these boards between people versus industry, and to better 
err on the side of the people. 

And I think that it ' s important to point out that 
that's where Bonnie Neely comes from. She is a life-long 
resident of Humboldt County. She went to school there. She 
went to local schools. She's lived through all the timber wars 
that have actually divided part of that community. She has an 
incredible understanding of the personal and the very 
compassionate feelings that go along with that territory. 

She's someone whom I have found, and I'll state for 
the record that we are of opposite party positions, party 
stripe, but I've always found that Supervisor Neely listens to 



all sides, listens to everyone, and she has a real desire to do 
the right thing. She works tirelessly to do just that. 

I can't think of a better appointment for not only 
this state, but a better representative for the area than 
Supervisor Neely. I'm here today to introduce her to you, and 
to ask that you approve her nomination, you confirm her 
nomination, and preferably on a 5-0 vote. 

I ' d be happy to answer any questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's all you have to say. 

SENATOR THOMPSON: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll let you go back to your 
other assignments, but we would like to ask a few things of her. 

SENATOR THOMPSON: Oh, you're going to ask her 
questions? 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good afternoon. 

Do you want to start, maybe, with just sort of a 
general explanation of your interest and fittedness for this 
position? 

MS. NEELY: Certainly. 

Mr. President and Members of the Committee, I just 
want to, perhaps, recap some of my qualifications. I have been 
a County Supervisor for seven years in Humboldt County. I did 
serve on the California Coastal Commission for five years, where 
we did deal with a lot of controversial issues, but I think we 
set some good policy for the state on coastal matters. 

I am a member of the Resource Protection Committee 
Board of Forestry, and we're working on the fire plan now for 



10 

the State of California, and I think my experience with local 
government will help us when it comes to implementing those 
plans . 

My philosophy regarding forestry is that we protect 
the biological integrity of California forest systems, and that 
we support achievement of healthy, long-term sustainable 
forests . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've been doing this for awhile. 

MS. NEELY: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When were you first appointed? 

MS. NEELY: To the Forestry Board, in June of last 
year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, it's been nine or so months 

MS. NEELY: About nine months. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any tough decisions while you've 
been there? 

MS. NEELY: Well, we have resubmitted the rules 
packages regarding silviculture, watersheds, and late serial 
successional forest stands, and we have had long discussions 
regarding those matters. I think we've come to some good 
conclusions. We introduced some amendments to those bills which 
I think will ensure that we get long-term plans from our forest 
producers . 

I think things have been controversial, but I think 
there 've been good resolutions to the issues. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How would you respond to the 
general criticism that it's inappropriate to have people 
appointed whose assignment is to represent the public's 



11 

interest, who are politically and philosophically close to the 
industry? 

MS. NEELY: Well, I can only tell you how I make 
decisions, and that is that I listen to the staff presentations. 
I listen to the testimony of the experts on all sides of the 
matter. I listen very closely to what the public has to say, 
and then I try to make decisions and achieve consensus for 
policies that are in the best interests of the State of 
California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, maybe to try to get a little 
more specific, I could ask about the analysis that we've seen 
from the Sierra Club. Well, the Coastal Commission records; I 
guess it's from them, or the League for Coastal Protection, one 
of the two or both, perhaps. 

What we try to look for, I guess, are general 
patterns that would reveal philosophy in approach, rather than 
to relitigate any particular decision you've made. 

MS. NEELY: I see. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I wonder if you could just comment 
in a general way on what seems to be these numbers. You've seen 
this? 

MS. NEELY: I have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: On issues of public access that 
came before the Commission, you were outstanding, especially 
contrasted to other appointments made by the Governor. And that 
could be said, I guess, about energy issues also. 

But when we look at the density and development 
issues, it kind of looks like there's not been a development you 



12 

didn't like. 

Enforcement issues, that you don't believe in any 
enforcement, and resource and visual questions, low percentages 
compared, at least, to some of your fellow Commissioners. 

Can you comment in a general way on that pattern, and 
how you would explain it or interpret it? 

MS. NEELY: Okay. 

First of all, as a Coastal Commissioner, I served as 
the local government representative from the North Coast, 
representing the Counties of Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte. 
And with regard to issues of density, I at most times defer to 
what the local governments want, what the people in the local 
areas are advocating for. 

With regard to enforcement issues, I feel that I have 
a good record regarding enforcement. I think that we have set 
up some good -- we have had some good legislation that's helped 
the Coastal Commission implement enforcement rules and control 
them themselves, and I feel that my record on enforcement is 
good. 

As far as — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's zero. 

MS. NEELY: Well, let me say in general that the 
Coastal Commission agrees unanimously probably 90-plus percent 
of the time. So, I'm not sure what specific issues they're 
pulling out. 

But there are only four Governor appointees of the 
twelve voting member Board, that we work together to achieve 
consensus and to set good policy for California. 



13 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I certainly share that thought, 
but they've selected ones where there weren't unanimous kind of 
consent . 

MS. NEELY: Right, and I would say that's a small 
percentage of what the decisions we make are. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sure it probably is. You 
know, we vote on hundreds of things every year. Most of them 
are not controversial, and it doesn't really say much about our 
respective philosophies, so we have to select out some of them. 

But just looking at the other folks that are there, 
there are people that, on enforcement, cast what these people, 
at least, think was a pro-conservation vote, and I understand 
that's their view, 75 percent of the time, 50 percent of the 
time, 66 percent. The weakest on the Governor's side, other 
than yourself, Commissioner, is Rick, 25 percent of the time. 

But you ' re a zero . 

MS. NEELY: And I'd have to review that to find out 
why, if I was absent, or if my alternate was there, or what 
exactly was the situation. There might be some other 
circumstance. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Three of them are in Malibu and 
one in L.A. County. 

Other questions from Members? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question. 

You are now a member of the Coastal Commission? 

MS. NEELY: No, I resigned from that in December. I 
served on there for five years. 

SENATOR AYALA: You answered my question. 



14 

MS. NEELY: Okay, thank you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: May I? 

I'm puzzled as the Chair is. This League for Coastal 
Protection, you know, has been around quite awhile, and they're 
probably a thorn in the side of the agency; that's their 
mission. 

I'm also puzzled by the enforcement. The only votes 
they show as indicated are mostly Southern California. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: May I ask something? What are we 
looking at? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's a letter that came in. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Yes, I think I have the chart. But 
the section on enforcement is D, and her name is not above 
there . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I'm assuming that the blank is 
her name . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's carried over from the 
previous page. 

MS. NEELY: But everyone else's name is there, but 
mine's not. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I inferred that perhaps it meant 
that she wasn't present for any of those votes; wasn't a member 
at the time. Because it's on the other pages, is it not? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are any of these folks present 
that had anything to do with preparing the chart? 

My assumption is that, and we could double-check 
this, because there are -- 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Those are 1992 votes, apparently. 



15 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They are all late '92. 

MS. NEELY: I was on in '92. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: You were? 

MS. NEELY: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It could have been an alternate, 
as you've indicated. 

MS. NEELY: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I wonder what recollection you might 
have to help us out. 

I also was intrigued by the zero in the enforcement. 
I don't think, no matter how strong our views are, one side or 
the other, these are divided into pro-conservationists and anti. 
I don't think anyone expects 100 percent voting record on either 
side. So, when you see a zero, it kind of raises the red flag. 

In going through the votes on enforcement, there was 
a Malibu grading issue. Staff recommended denial. It's 
indicated here that it's an anti-conservation vote. 

The next one is, I guess you were absent from that 
meeting, and then the next one is another one in Malibu. I 
don't know what it is, Feldman-something Malibu. So, there are 
only two there under enforcement. That's not a very long, you 
know, record to go on. 

That ' s why we need you to explain these to us . Do 
you recall any of the issues? 

MS. NEELY: Quite frankly, there are so many issues, 
that I don't remember specifically what those ones were in 
Malibu. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I prefer to go through these to give 



16 

you an opportunity to refresh your recollection. I understand. 
I don't remember all the votes I cast up here; neither do any of 
us. So, we all have that problem. 

But on the overall rating, after getting through all 
the different categories where the Commission itself comes about 
a little over half overall, 53 percent, you're rated at 30 
percent. That, to me, looks like a pretty weak vote with 
respect to the environment and the mission of the Coastal 
Commission. 

I speak as one who was very active in trying to 
develop that legislation. I think we either failed to get it 
passed or it was vetoed. I don't recall. But as a result, some 
of us worked hard on putting the initiative together. And, as 
you know, the Coastal Commission was adopted as a result of a 
statewide vote of the people — 

MS. NEELY: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: — which gives it even higher 
authority than us. So, that's why I'm interested historically. 

So, when I look at this, and it shows overall of only 
30 percent, naturally it raises questions. 

Can you comment on that? I suppose you've seen these 
analyses that come through. 

MS. NEELY: Yes. 

One thing I'd like to comment just on in general is 
that to be able to access some of the problems that were created 
in the past, you have to have a project come before you so that 
you can, perhaps, make some corrections, make some mitigations. 

You also have to ensure that that project is 



17 

financially viable; otherwise, people won't move forward with 
it. 

And the other comment is that, as I said before, I do 
align myself with local governments, and I do listen very 
carefully to what local governments want and what the people 
want . 

And I apologize. I wish I'd had time to, perhaps, 
look at these . 

SENATOR PETRIS: You see, the problem I have, one of 
the reasons we worked hard to have a Coastal Commission enacted 
is that we felt a lot of the cities along the coast were just 
turning it over to developers. That reflects the city council 
position. I'm not so sure it reflects the voters in that city 
in each case. 

MS. NEELY: I see. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, I personally, to be convinced of 
a strong record, would have to look at something more than 
support by the local cities. 

I know in another appointee in another area, we got a 
lot of letters of approval, but they're all directly interested 
private companies, and some public agencies, all interested in 
going this direction. The opposition's interested in some more 
moderate direction, so that's why I raised the point. 

Apart from the supporting what the locals, at least 
through the council, feel is right, do you have other examples 
to give of support for your positions for the 30 percent as 
opposed to 7 percent? 

MS. NEELY: If I understand the question correctly, 



18 

why my record is at 30 percent? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, and what kind of support do you 
have for that, other than the city councils? You mentioned the 
local -- 

MS. NEELY: Well, I think I have a strong record 
regarding public access, and that I have advocated to ensure 
that there's public access, you know, involved with project 
development . 

I think that I've been a good protector of the 
California coastline and have supported projects that help 
mitigate for the sins of the past, especially in the Southern 
California area. 

I have advocated to ensure that all local governments 
have their local coastal plan adopted and are certified by the 
State of California. And that's one of the most important 
things, I think, that I did in my five years on the Commission, 
was to help local governments get the appropriate money to staff 
their departments so that they could go ahead and put forth 
local coastal plans, and to ensure there was protection up and 
down the coastline. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are those plans submitted to the 
Coastal Commission? 

MS. NEELY: Yes, they are, and they're certified by 
the state to be consistent with state law. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That was also one of our main goals, 
was to have some uniformity up and down the coast -- 

MS. NEELY: Yes, I'm pleased — 

SENATOR PETRIS: — especially on access. 



19 

MS. NEELY: I'm pleased to say that in the northern 
part of the state, that all the cities and the counties now have 
local coastal plans that have been adopted. And that was one of 
my goals as a Commissioner, was to ensure that that happened. 

SENATOR PETRIS: All of them in the north? 

MS. NEELY: Uh-huh. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, do you have any other comment 
on enforcement? 

MS. NEELY: Well, I supported the legislation that 
was developed not too long ago, within the last couple of years, 
that allowed the Commission to issue cease and desist orders 
directly by the Commission, and that I felt that, you know, 
perhaps this doesn't reflect all of the votes regarding 
enforcement. And I feel that I was supportive of those 
enforcement rules and laws, and did support them. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is there a full vote of the 
Commission on each cease and desist order, or is that also done 
by staff? 

MS. NEELY: Usually it's a recommendation from staff. 
And my recollection is that if staff recommends a cease and 
desist, the Commission is very much supportive of taking action 
after a hearing to support staff in that regard. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The final word does come from the 
Commission? 

MS. NEELY: Yes, it does. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And that's an area where you say 
your voting record is very strong? 

MS. NEELY: I believe that it is. 



3 



6 



20 

SENATOR PETRIS: Upholding the staff on cease and 
desist orders. 

MS. NEELY: Very much so. 
4 I did have a letter from the Chairman of the Coastal 

Commission, who is, if you're interested, a Democrat who did 
indicate that he felt that I was a good member of the 
Commission, a thoughtful person, and that I did work with the 
other members of the Commission to achieve consensus in the best 
9 interest of the state. 
10 SENATOR PETRIS: I don't remember who that is. 

MS. NEELY: Tom Gwyn. He's with the Port of Oakland. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Oh, yes, we got a letter from him, 
which puzzled me in light of this other analysis. 

MS. NEELY: Right. I just wanted to bring up that 
there are -- different people have different perceptions about 



16 what the record was . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Because in that subject, your score 
18 



19 
20 



is 12 percent, according to this one group, which a lot worse 
than 30 percent overall. 

Let's see if you can remember another area. 
21 MS. NEELY: All right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Visual impact on the coast. I'm not 
sure I know what that means. I don't know whether you're 
looking at it from the ocean or from the land. 
MS. NEELY: From land to the ocean. 
26 SENATOR PETRIS: From land to the ocean? 

MS. NEELY: Right. 
SENATOR PETRIS: There's an item, May 14th, '92, 



23 
24 



28 



21 

recommended denial. You voted against the recommendation. So, 
I guess that was some project. 

And then September 9, '92, San Luis Obispo, staff 
recommended no, and you voted the other way. And also L.A. 
County, June, '92, staff recommended approval, and you voted the 
other way. That ought to be a plus for you; shouldn't it? 

Now, there are names here: Yamada . Is he a member 
of the Commission? 

MS. NEELY: Yamada, no. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Or Brown? I don't know what these 
names mean. 

Do you remember any of those three visual impact? 

MS. NEELY: The only one that I might remember -- I'm 
not 100 percent sure — was that there was a water tower 
associated with a project in Mendocino County which was higher 
than the height limits that are usually allowed in that area. 
And because water towers, wooden water towers, are an aesthetic 
part of Mendocino, I mean, they're just part of that community, 
we did allow a variance of it being so many inches higher than 
what we normally would as part of the project. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Which county was that? 

MS. NEELY: That was the Mendocino one. 

And as far as the San Luis Obispo and L.A., I don't 
remember which ones those are. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now on access, you're rated at 7 5 
percent, and I see a lot of pluses here: Huntington Beach, 
Serra Retreat in Malibu. 

A lot of stuff in Malibu? 



22 

MS. NEELY: Yes. However, since, you know, they've 
formed a city, they have pretty much decided that they're going 
to develop their own local coastal plan, and they will not be 
under what the county standards were. They'll be developing 
their own. 

SENATOR PETRIS: When did they form a city? 

MS. NEELY: It was more than a year ago. They have, 
through legislation -- 

SENATOR PETRIS: There's also the Monterey Bay 
Aquarium; you got a plus there, which — 

MS. NEELY: Wonderful project. 

SENATOR PETRIS: — as a fan and frequent visitor, 
I'm happy to see. 

Carlsbad, you have a plus. The staff recommended 



denial . 



building? 



I assume that means denial of some project, some 



MS. NEELY: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And you said no on that; that's why 
you get a plus from this particular group. 

MS. NEELY: I guess that shows that I have a more 
balanced approach. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It certainly does in this category. 
Access of 75 percent, that helps counter-balance the 12. And 
there's one of 9 percent on density. 

Is density always a big issue in these things? 

MS. NEELY: Density can be an issue in Malibu, for 
instance. You know, they'll be concerned about expanding the 



23 



4 



sewer systems because that will mean additional housing, and 
they'll use those types of, you know, means to control what 
happens in an area. So, yes, density is always an issue 
locally. 
5 SENATOR PETRIS: And my experience has been that 

local government usually loves density. They want more revenue; 
they want, you know, just pack them in there and keep building. 

MS. NEELY: Right. They like a lot of development on 
the waterfronts for tourist-related project because they think 
it helps the economy as well. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there any member at all of the 
Board that would seem to bring an environmental perspective? 

MS. NEELY: On the Board of Forestry, absolutely. 
Bob Heald, Jim Culver are both educators and are -- Jim, I 
think, owns a private firm that's very environmentally oriented. 
They're public members. 
18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, those points of view get -- 

9 MS. NEELY: Uh-huh, they are represented on the 

Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thinking of your service on the 
Coastal Commission, I'd be interested in your evaluation, and I 
don't mean to recommend criticism of anyone, but who do you 
think is the hardest working, or most thorough, or most 
persuasive from any point of view, member of the Commission? 

MS. NEELY: Well, the first person that comes to mind 
is Madelyn Glickfield, who represents the Malibu area. And of 
course, she has a lot of — quite a workload because there's so 



7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
1? 
14 
15 
16 
17 



20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 



28 



24 

much going on there. She also is a planner, I think, you know, 
educated as a planner, so she has a lot of technical expertise 
that she brings to the Commission. 

Other representatives, David Malcomb has been on for 
several years. He's from the Chula Vista area. He's actually 
an alternate now. He has a lot of history with the Commission. 

There ' ve been a lot of changes, in fact. I would say 
the Chair is a very thoughtful person when it comes to 
protection of habitat and resources, and always explores the 
issue thoroughly to make sure that all questions are asked and 
the answers come out so that we are in a position to evaluate 
and make a decision. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone in the room who 
would wish to make any comments, either in support or 
opposition, to the issue? Yes, sir. 

MR. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, Members, I'm Gil Murray, 
Vice President of the California Forestry Association. 

I've been associated with the Board of Forestry in 
various capacities for about the last 12 years, and I've seen a 
lot of Board members and attended a lot of meetings. 

I would just like to offer my support, and offer that 
Ms. Neely brings something unique that I haven't seen in a Board 
member before. I don't know if it's her natural ability, or as 
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors or her Coastal Commission 
experience, but as professional Legislators, you understand the 
art of compromise and negotiation in trying to reach consensus . 
And she brings that to her fellow Board members, which I haven't 
seen a lot of. 



25 

I think in the nine months she's been there, she's 
been extremely constructive in trying to work the Board through 
some of their more controversial issues, and they've had a lot 
of those in the last year. 

So, we would offer our support as a public member and 
hope you can endorse her. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Anyone else? 

MR. CARLESON: I'm Eric Carleson, representing the 
California Licensed Foresters Association. That's 700 
professionals in the diverse range from private companies to 
state and federal positions. 

They, too, are strongly in support of Ms. Neely and 
have indicated to us that she's been very good in terms of 
taking in the technical and scientific testimony in the 
decisions . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did I miss anyone that wished to 
comment? 

SENATOR PETRIS: I have one more question. It's the 
most important question, and I forgot to ask you. 

What is the Chingford School of Music in London? 

MS. NEELY: Oh, Chingford. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you tell us about that? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And what happened to your accent? 

MS. NEELY: Well, I suppose I could put one on if I 
need to do it. 

I was a music major and did attend Chingford School 



26 

of Music in London, England, majoring in french horn and piano. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that kind of like our Julliard 
School in New York? 

MS. NEELY: Well, I'm not sure if it's quite to the 
standards of Julliard, but it was a very good school. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

MS. NEELY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the pleasure of the 
Committee? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, we have a motion to 
recommend confirmation. 

Let's call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 
Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



Lockyer . 



SECRETARY WEBB: Three to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Three-zero; recommendation to the 



Floor. 



MS. NEELY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The next one is Mr. O'Dell, or 
Professor O'Dell, or whatever the right term is. 



27 

MR. O'DELL: Good afternoon, Senators, Chairman 
Lockyer . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you want to tell us about you, 
and why you like being on the Board, or do you? 

MR. O'DELL: The Board is an opportunity to mature 
philosophically as well as physiologically, at maybe an 
accelerated rate. 

But I hail from the Midwest, and I've been in 
agricultural forestry enterprises my entire life. And I was 
educated in the Midwest at the undergraduate level, and came via 
the Rocky Mountains, and then on to the West Coast in '64. 

I went from graduate school at Oregon State and began 
as an Assistant Professor at Humboldt State University in '71. 
Taught at the University until "79, and then took a leave of 
absence. Worked in the Regional Office for the Forest Service 
for three years in Portland, and then went into research and 
development in industry, and came back to California in '84. 
And I've been in industry in California since that time. 

I have additionally to that served on the 
Professional Licensing or Examining Committee for the California 
Licensed Foresters, and I've enjoyed that appointment for about 
2h years. And then my appointment was coincident with Ms. 
Neely's in June of '93 to the Board of Forestry. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, as someone, obviously, that 
is meant to be the industry representative -- 

MR. O'DELL: Yes, I am. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — that's a different kind of role 
than, perhaps, that which we discussed with your predecessor 



28 

here, but perhaps you could share any thoughts you have about 
the resource management side of the issues that you grapple with 
as a Board member, and what tensions or decisions you find 
yourself making as a Board member which, perhaps, would have 
been different than your thinking as a private industry expert. 

MR. O'DELL: As a participant on the Board, 
everyone's focus as a constituency is the State of California 
citizenry, both now and future generations. 

My involvement as a Board member is to assure that my 
decisions and participation in that process allows for sustained 
forestry for now and forever more, and to realize that on that 
Board, irrespective of our personal needs and desires or 
agendas, we need to seek balance. 

This last package, or these last packages, we passed 
really do achieve balance. It gives new definition to the way 
we're going to practice forestry. It allows greater 
environmental sensitivity and more responsible stewardship on 
properties. It allows greater certainty, which we absolutely 
find critical in forestry, because our planning horizons are so 
long, and we've lacked so badly in the last decade, really, 
because we're always responding to the next crisis. And with 
the fundamental part of the silviculture package, which is the 
sustained yield plan, it allows owners of property now to craft 
longer term plans and greater flexibility of management to 
implement those plans, and that gives greater certainty that we 
won't have a crisis always on the horizon we need to deal with. 

I think that the decisions on the Board always need 
to be dealing with that kind of forestry agenda, of certainty 



29 

for planners, certainty for citizens of the state that we'll 
have a long-term forestry enterprise in this state. 

We also need to understand as our Board, we deal with 
private land, not public land. So, that's another ingredient 
that we always have to take into account, that these are private 
lands regulated by the state. And so, we have to have balance 
there from the private perspective as well. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You, of course, have been involved 
in those public controversies: the Sierra Accord, the the Grand 
Accord and so on. 

What role or thoughts did you have about those 
matters? 

MR. O'DELL: At that time, I was not part of the 
Board, sitting on the Board. I was a person that could exercise 
my company's point of view in front of the Board, and I did 
that. 

My direct involvement in the accords were not except 
as in advice or in planning. I didn't have any direct political 
involvement. There were other people assigned to that from the 
company that employs me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you think your perspectives 
could or might be different as a private company representative 
compared to a Board member in those kind of debates? 

MR. O'DELL: I don't think so. 

The condition for my participation as a Board member 
was held after a conversation with the principals of the 
company, that I need to know that my operation and involvement 
in the Board was independent of anything except my conscience 



30 

and my personal integrity in the way I saw things. And I was 
assured that was true. 

So, I truly mean that when I operate as a Board 
member, I operate as a professional forester and not as a member 
of a private forestry firm of the state. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you explain to a lay person 
who's interested but doesn't understand the nature of the splits 
in the industry? Just the industry's side of these debates, 
either in terms of the economics, or geography, or philosophy 
involved. 

I'll be your student for a minute, if you'll try to 
sketch it. 

MR. O'DELL: The basic differences in the forestry 
conversation or dialogue is mostly along silvicultural 
prescriptions: how do you manage a crop of trees or an 
ownership to meet the goals or policies of whomever you work 
for . 

And so, some firms are what we call uneven aged 
management prescriptions; other firms are more even aged 
management because the climate, the biology of the species 
you're managing, or the goals of your company fall along those 
lines . 

On the North Coast — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The difference being — 

MR. O'DELL: The difference being, even aged being 
that you treat a stand — usually all the trees on the property, 
or most of the trees in the stand are treated the same way at 
the same time. The cutting prescriptions are, you take off most 



31 

of that stand, and you very commonly use artificial regeneration 
on that site. 

In uneven aged forestry, you take just part of the 
stand, and you leave other parts of the residual stand then as 
your seed source, which then provides the seed for the new 
crops. So, you have multiple ages, multiple sizes, and that 
works if you have the right biology of the species involved. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Then you started to say, "On the 
North Coast. " 

MR. O'DELL: On the North Coast, our species and 
climate provides a circumstance where the best kind of forestry, 
the firm that I work for, has been even aged management. The 
biology of the trees that we manage respond very, very well to 
open sunlight. 

The kinds of forestry we practice on the North Coast 
has artificial regeneration. We own nurseries. We are 
interested in optimizing or maximizing the genetic potential of 
the best trees that compose a forest stand so that future 
generations of trees will be composed of the best crop trees . 

So, we take the trees off that are just average. We 
put best trees back that we grow at our nursery. We optimize 
the spacing. We put them out there so that they always have 
room to grow, and we grow them as quickly as we can by thinning 
that stand, and then perhaps even fertilizing that stand when 
it's like 30-35 years old so that we can have larger trees in a 
shorter period of time from the best genetic gene pool that we 
had to work with. 

That ' s as opposed to uneven aged management that 



32 

usually deals with just the biological diversity on the site. 

Our view, in even aged management, is we get to 
better optimize or maximize the site potential. That site will 
grow an average crop of trees, or it can grow a much better crop 
of trees through management. 

On the private side, as you would obviously know, 
that the economics is to grow the best crop of trees in the 
shortest period of time you could. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are companies that would be 
associated with one or other of the emphasis between uneven and 
even? Are there particular advocates of one or the other 
approach? 

MR. O'DELL: Well, yes, I think the advocacy, you 
inherit your advocacy, basically, because of the tree biology. 

If you are in the Sierras, for instance, where you 
have trees that are tolerant, they can grow in shade, and trees 
that are intolerant that grow in mostly light, and they have 
trees of intermediate tolerance, then you can manipulate that 
stand so that trees — that the stand is opened up. The 
residual trees will cast seed that can grow up under a shade 
overstory, and you could always perpetuate a stand on the site. 

On the other hand, over on the coast, where the site 
is on average very much better -- it has a higher productivity, 
has much higher rainfall, higher fertility, better site class -- 
you take the stand off at once, and we grow the next stand all 
at once. We think that not only the biology is better 
utilized, but also the economics are much better. 

I don't believe that there is really a philosophical 



33 

schism or a chasm we can't cross, but I think that as a forest 
manager, you're obligated to manage what you're dealt. If 
you're dealt an area that's very steep, site class not very 
high, your economics would not allow you to do even aged 
management because you can't afford the artificial regeneration, 
for one thing, and carry that capital. 

So, what you do is, you take a little, leave a 
little. And you manipulate the stand so that the tree crop is 
never all removed at once. 

On the other hand, over on the coast where your sites 
are better, biology's better, economics are better and we do it 
differently. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Were there splits within the 
coastal companies? 

MR. O'DELL: Different points of view? Yes, there 
are different points of view. 

Again, depending on which company and what their age 
class distribution -- how big and how old their trees all are 
within their inventory -- that largely determines what your 
point of view would be over on the coast. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions from other Members? 

SENATOR PETRIS: As one that's been in the industry a 
long time, and now you're serving on the Board, if you were 
given the authority to start over again, let's wipe out the 
codes, there's no law. I give you a magic pencil and the power. 
You're the only person on the Board. You're the czar, and I ask 
for an ideal plan. 

Would there be substantial differences from the 



34 

present scheme of things that you would advocate to improve it 
both for the commercial interests and the general public? 

MR. O'DELL: May I ask for clarification? 

Are we starting with virgin, untouched landscapes? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, let's start from scratch. 

MR. O'DELL: Oh, no. If we started from absolutely 
untouched landscapes, and we are starting today — we're not 
inheriting the past; we're not trying to improve or repair the 
past, but starting today -- then we would -- I would advocate 
we'd enter these watersheds much differently. And we would not 
do a progressive, even aged management walk through these 
watersheds, as was done in the past. 

And that established our age classes that we work 
with today, by the way. We've inherited what they did in the 
past, so we're trying to set the stage differently. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That past predates the laws; doesn't 
it? 

MR. O'DELL: It does; that's correct. In fact, some 
of those watersheds were entered 100 years ago. So, we're still 
trying to set up different kinds of age classes, vegetation 
types, and cover classes in these watersheds based on what we've 
inherited from how they were treated before. 

And quite frankly, Senator, some of those watersheds 
are in pretty tough shape. They were harvested and walked away 
from, and let go for taxes, and many of the more progressive 
companies have bought those properties and taken that brush 
type, that low grade hardwood type, off, and invested lots and 
lots of money to get those back in conifer production to meet 



35 

the intent of the Forest Practice statute, which talks about 
maximum sustained productivity. It takes a lot of money to get 
those watersheds back growing conifers. 

I digress. We go -- the circumstance where they're 
all virgin watersheds, no. I would advocate that we enter those 
much more gently, for one thing. We would not cut or 
concentrate so much energy or effort in single watersheds, but 
would rather spread out the harvesting over the landscape. 

I would also try to design a system whereby the road 
net would be minimized in miles, and also these seasonal roads 
would be minimized, because roads can often be one of the 
greatest difficulties that we have to manage around, old roads 
particularly. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, moving from day one and 
confronting our inheritance, all these bad things you say we've 
inherited, and looking forward to, let's say, the next hundred 
years, what would your plan be for the next hundred years, 
taking into account the bad conditions that you've described? 

MR. O'DELL: It's not all bad. I don't mean to — 

SENATOR PETRIS: No, I don't mean everything, but 
having in mind whatever part — 

MR. O'DELL: There's lots of wonderful landscape out 
there . 

But taking the situation as we are today, I would 
advocate long-term landscape planning. I think that landscape 
planning is more than just a fad. I think that it's long 
overdue. 

We need to look at things beyond the timber harvest 



36 

plans, site-specific level, and talk about landscapes; talk 
about watersheds; and talk about the residents, both plant and 
animals, that inherit those watersheds. And we need to manage 
them in aggregate, not as single species or as single timber 
type. 

And that's what I would -- my earlier comment about 
certainty, if we had more certainty and longer planning 
horizons, we can do that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's to prevent you from doing it 
now on the Board? 

MR. O'DELL: The way our statute is, the lifetime of 
our timber harvest plan is only three years, and we can request 
each of one-year extensions, so the maximum length of time is 
only five years. 

Our planning horizon's a hundred years, and it's 
difficult to manage landscapes from five-year sound bytes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Why do we have such a small period 
there? Why do we say: three years, five years? 

MR. O'DELL: That was the way the rules were crafted 
2 years ago, and we've never been able to get that either 
through the Legislature -- well, it would have to be a statute 
change . 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, to adopt the plan you're talking 
about for the next 100 years, we have to start with legislation. 
You can't leave it up to individual companies? 

MR. O'DELL: Oh, yes, we surely can leave it up to 
individual companies . 

SENATOR PETRIS: You mentioned the good guys, the 



37 

good companies came in and salvaged things. 

Does it depend on the good will of the companies that 
are out there? 

MR. O'DELL: To do long-term planning? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MR. O'DELL: To some extent, because we don't have 
any incentive to do long-term planning at the moment. In fact, 
there's disincentive to do long-term planning because of the 
uncertainty in the regulations. 

To invest all that capital in a long-term process of 
growing trees, we need some certainty that you'll be able to 
regain that capital when those trees reach merchantable 
dimensions: 50, 60, 80 years hence. 

At the present time, we don't have that certainty. 
We have very short cycle three-year plans. You get the plan 
approved. You've got three years or up to five, with two 
one-year extensions, to getting that off, getting that crop 
rotated, or you have to write a new plan. 

In that five years, many, many things change in 
regulation. In fact, almost total overhaul in some of our 
regulations occur in five-year increments. 

So, we need greater stability, and I think that these 
last packages will provide that. 

And we need to get away from site-specific, small 
units, to always having to manage pieces of our real estate in 
20-acre increments. We ought to be dealing with watersheds and 
landscapes. And we need long-term planning horizons where we 
can say that we're going to manage multiple watersheds, or 



38 

multiple planning watersheds, ownership-wide, and look at the 
continuity of how vegetation is spread over the landscapes over 
multiple watersheds, and also how do we manage other things that 
live there, particularly the wildlife. 

And to demonstrate greater environmental sensitivity 
and responsible stewardship of these properties, I think you 
have to do it on a multiple species and a landscape basis. 

The firm I worked for did just that. In 1989, we 
were pressed badly by that Northern Spotted Owl. We didn't 
think there were any owls on the property that I happened to 
work on. We started surveying to find out, we found lots of 
owls. They weren't supposed to be there, but they were there. 
So many, in fact, that we couldn't really operate any more as we 
had in the past, so we had great incentives to go out and write 
an owl conservation plan, and we did that. 

We started in August of 1990, and we got the plan 
approved in September of 1992. Lots of time, lots of energy, 
but a landscape plan of adaptive management for a threatened 
species at the federal level. That's very innovative planning 
and conversation, in my view. 

The only one in that whole -- up until just about two 
months ago, when a firm in Washington got the second one -- the 
first ever adaptive management plan for a threatened species. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's our next step? 

MR. O'DELL: Our next step, I think, is to do a lot 
more of that. And the coho salmon is going to do that for us. 
You know, we're in the same kind of planning mode right now for 
the fish that we were in the owl in 1990. 



39 

And my point being is that if we could get past doing 
it for coho salmon, and get past doing it for Northern Spotted 
Owl, and do it for animals that live on the landscape, I think 
that that ' s the kind of forest management I would advocate for 
the State of California. In fact, for the whole Northwest. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you optimistic about — 

MR. O'DELL: I'm very optimistic about that. 

And the first increment of my optimism being rewarded 
has been my participation in the Board action getting this 
silvicultural package sent to the Administrative Law -- Office 
of Administrative Law, and that is, I think, sweeping reforms in 
silviculture, because it does have sustained plans, where we can 
deal at property-wide, multiple watershed levels. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And you think that can be done 
through regulations pursuant to existing statutes? 

MR. O'DELL: We are going to do it within regulation, 
knowing full well that there will be a great deal of discomfort 
because of the short horizon of five years. 

SENATOR PETRIS: But you need a longer horizon. 

MR. O'DELL: We need a longer horizon. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm very interested in that. 

Many years ago, I carried a bill that I called "The 
Hundred Year Plan." It was laughed out of existence, 
unfortunately, but it was a hundred year plan for the whole 
state which required us to take inventory of all our resources 
lakes, rivers, timber, and many other things — and try to 
look ahead a hundred years after looking back. 

If we look back a hundred years, it ' s a pretty 



40 

shocking thing. But that would be a guide and a tool to 
avoiding the mistakes of the past. It will help us make the 
state look pretty good a hundred years from now through the 
kinds of programs you're talking about. 

Maybe I'll have to dust that off and try it again. I 
may call on you for some guidance. 

MR. O'DELL: I'd welcome the opportunity to 
participate . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present who would 
wish to offer any testimony? 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I was going to ask Mr. O'Dell, you 
are the appointee representing the industry to the Board; is 
that correct? 

MR. O'DELL: That's correct, Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: What is really the obligation of the 
representative in terms of representing that industry, at the 
expense of the fisheries, or recreation? Are you expected to 
represent industry on every single issue? 

MR. O'DELL: No. I'm not given an agenda that I must 
follow. 

I feel that in representing industry, part of my 
obligation is to represent those other noncommodity entities you 
just mentioned: recreation, aesthetics, fisheries, all 
wildlife, as a matter of fact. 

My job is to represent the industrial point of view 
of how those properties can be managed without compromising 



41 

those other noncommodities . 

SENATOR AYALA: So, when you represent the industry, 
you're really equally concerned about the fisheries and 

recreation? 

i 
MR. O'DELL: Oh, in a major way, yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, please. 

MR. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Gil Murray, 
California Forestry Association. 

Mr. O'Dell is somewhat modest in his participation in 
the habitat conservation plan that he mentioned. As he said, 
that was the first one in the United States. 

Well, he was instrumental in his company's 
developing that, and it is, as a conservation tool, probably 
unprecedented anyplace else. And he mentioned the second one, 
and a much more small and modest one was only recently adopted 
in the State of Washington. 

So, I think he brings good environmental credentials 
from the industry. His company's on the leading edge. 

Also, in his public service, he has served for 
several years on the Board of Forestry's Licensing Committee, 
which sits in judgment of his fellow foresters to make sure that 
they are -- their conduct is professional in this state. I 
think that's to be noted for his public service. 

Personally, I had the privilege of serving with him 
on a wildlife task force for the Board of Forestry in 1990, in 
which we made recommendations to advise the Board of Forestry on 
how to better address wildlife issues, not just timber-related. 



42 

He is not a member of our association, but I hope you 
will confirm him anyway. 

Thank you . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Did that include black bears, your 
wildlife plan? 

MR. MURRAY: It was a general — most terrestrial 
animals in the state. It was mostly wildlife that occurs on 
forested lands, yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any other comments? 

MR. CARLESON: Yes, again, Eric Carleson for the 
California Licensed Foresters Association. 

Strong support for Mr. O'Dell. They regard him 
highly as a peer amongst the membership, as a teacher of many of 
them, and for his work on the commission that creates their 
examination and updates it. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd simply add that I think you're 
an exemplary representative of the industry and appropriate for 
this position. 

I compliment you for the times that you feel like 
your responsibility to be steward for the public compels you to 
be critical even some of the industry's practices. It's clear 
that you're up to that, and my compliments for those occasions 
when you feel that calling. 

MR. O'DELL: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the pleasure of the 
Committee? 



43 



SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion for 
recommendation . 

Let's call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Craven Aye. Senator 



Lockyer . 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MR. O'DELL: Thank you. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
4:03 P.M. ] 

— 00O00-- 



44 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing Senate Rules Committee hearing was reported 
verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and thereafter 
transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

y^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 



this ' / day of March, 1994. 



k> -O/w 



'(/- 



EVELYN/ J. MIZAK '- J 
Shorthand Reporter 



250-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 250-R when ordering.